you thank you Senator Blumenthal next up we have um Senator Kennedy and then Senator hono Mr uh Burk to am I saying that right yes Senator thank you burto I'm not against big per se I am against dumb and uh the way your company handled the ticket sales from Miss Swift was a debacle and whoever in your company was in charge of that ought to be fired number two I hear two things today I hear some of you saying that um that we have an an antitrust situation here and that is wrong from an academic perspective and a consumer protection perspective I hear others of you saying uh live nation's making too much money and we want some of it okay but I hear all of you saying you care about the consumer and I I I take you at your word so how would you feel about adopting a rule which it seems to me would satisfy bot situation let's just adopt a rule well strike that I don't want to make it a suggestion because I want to think it through more but let me ask you your opinion you're the experts what if we adopt a rule that said uh tickets to a Taylor Swift concert or Mr Lawrence's band's concert are non-transferable now you're going to you're not going to have a problem with Bots okay if you got a scalper trying to buy 2,000 tickets they don't want 2,000 tickets they want a profit and it'll hold down ticket prices why we do that don't everybody jump in at once I mean I think whether it was that or um only trans erable at face value I'm not an expert on the secondary ticketing market so all I can tell you is that from the artist perspective we would not make a dollar less if that were Mr if you care about the consumer and I I hear you say that you do uh I'll tell you what the consumer is concerned about the consumer is not concerned about how many Ayers can dance on the head of a pen and whether this is a antitrust violation or not or the FTC the consumer is concerned about about the price yeah so I'm I'm saying I think so would you support non-transferability or you can only transfer it it at face value I mean I think it's a really interesting question I'm not an expt well I think non-transferability is making a judgment in lie of what a customer would make I understand what it means are you would you support that no okay how about you Mr noo I would respectfully not support uh such a role okay how about you Mr Michelson Michaelson but that's good um yes Senator a good question um totally support uh non-transferability uh thank you tot NE next sir we uh respectfully think transferability is important for consumers you think it's important is it important for consumers or for the middleman like let's say I'm going to a a show with Jerry and I buy the tickets I want to be able to send that ticket to Jerry so that we can go together that's the exception rather than the rule yeah it's I mean it certainly I think there's interesting ways we could use a few people may may have to eat the ticket they get sick they can't go but but uh most people will think about that before they buy the ticket now if you want to hold down prices cut out the middle men and the middle women you want to cut out Bots make it non-transferable or transferable only at price at at face value couldn't a couldn't a major artist couldn't a Bruce Springstein say who whose music I love uh couldn't he say look um I've got Market power I'm going to set this price for the ticket I'm going to set this price for the service fee and it's going to be non-transferable couldn't an artists do that with Market power for sure yeah I think it's an interesting idea and arst some artists have done that problem solved for sure how about that Mr burol yes Senator we would fully support an artist's right to make their shows non-transferable you support do you support non-transferability or not we would support non-transferability yes well then why a big part of the problem just solved okay if you care about the consumer you're going to hold the price down you're going to cut out the middleman now we still have the problem of some of your colleag say you're making too much money some of them say I hear them say you're making too much money and we want some of it I hear others saying um um you're making too much money and that's hurting the consumer because those fees gets passed on if you care about the consumer cap the price cut out the Bots cut out the middle people and give the if if you really care about the consumer give the consumer a break not every kid can afford whatever it is $500 to go see Taylor Swift and I'd like to see Miss Swift or Mr Springstein or some of the other major artist step up and say you know what we're going to support non-transferability and we're going to cap the fees that are added on here and we're going to make sure that the artist has paid a fair price everybody else can make a profet but you can't make an obscene profet especially the scalpers if we do that now we've done something now we've gone beyond how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pen and whether the FTC ought to be involved and we know fully well that'll happen sometime in the next century and and whether something's a technical violation of the antitrust law which we have to go litigate okay um my work here is done Senator Rono Dr lman do do you believe based on your observ you seem to be a very intelligent well-informed man based on your observation of Dr CH of the uh Mr Ching ping that Mr Chi jingping will ever do anything that is uh inconsistent with China's best interests in the name of global climate change I understand that China has a federal carbon tax okay yeah but but faced with a policy okay where China does something that's not in its best interest but it does it because it's in the global best interest do you think president XI would do that I think that President XI understands that we have to work together to address this Global problem yes I do and it will be in the best interest of China to work with the United States to address you think the answer is yes I think the answer is that it's in China's best interest to work with the rest of the world to address this problem as it is in the United States best interest to work with the rest of the world to address this problem to create harmonized incentives to Red you believe in the tooth fairy no sir do you believe in the Easter Bunny no sir you believe that Jimmy hofa died of natural causes no sir okay next followed by Senator Brun and for the record for people who came late we actually have a third witness who happens to not be visible because he's with us electronically but it's Mark Carney who was the former Chief of the Bank of Canada and the bank of England thank you Mr chairman um Dr lman how long have you been studying climate change and possible solution studying well you know I I was the head of risk management at Goldman Sachs I didn't worry too much about climate change at that time if you would doc how many years let's say 15 all right how about you Dr holtzen uh about uh 25 okay um Dr lman how much will it cost to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050 I don't know sir so you're advocating we do these things but you don't know the ultimate cost yes absolutely I I I certainly don't know the ultimate cost and it's very uncertain it depends on depends Innovations it depends on I I I understand I'm just trying to lay a foundation here to understand your expert testimony Dr hold seeken do you know how much it will cost to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050 depends how you do it if we do it all in the federal budget with directed things it be private dollars sorry public and private dollars it's it's ultimately private dollars anyway yeah I agree so how much you're going to look at $50 trillion $50 trillion okay thank you if we make the United un States of America carbon neutral by 2050 by spending $50 trillion which you're advocating I gather no okay then strike that last part I'm wrong you're not advocating you're advocating something um if you're going to do something do something smart that's what I advocated okay if we spend $50 trillion to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050 how much will that lower World temperatures I can't answer that because we don't know what China and India and the rest of the globe has done okay have you had heard anybody from the B Administration say how much it will lower World temperatures no does anybody know how much you want lower World temperatures no no no one can know for sure okay Dr litterman yes if we spend $50 trillion or however much it takes to make the United States carbon neutral by 2050 how much will it lower World temperatures Senator that depends on the rest of the world we have to work with the rest of the world we're in this together it's one world we can't throw the wall around United States and what if what if we spend 50 trilon dollar Europe cooperates most western democracies cooperate but India and China don't how much will our $50 trillion lower World temperature we're in this together Senator we have to get the world to work together how much I I get that okay how much would lower World temperatures if China and India do not help yes I don't know okay Dr lman do do you believe based on your observ you seem to be very intelligent well-informed man based on your observation of Dr Chi of the uh Mr Chi jingping that Mr xinping will ever do anything that is uh inconsistent with China's best interest in the name of global climate change I understand that China has a federal carbon tax okay yeah but but faced with a policy okay where China does something that's not in its best interests but it does it because it's in the global best interest do you think president Shu would do that I think that President shei understands that we have to work together to address this Global problem yes I do and it will be in the best interest of China to work with the United States to address so you think think the answer is yes I think the answer is that it's in China's best interest to work with the rest of the world to address this problem as it is in the United States best interest to work with the rest of the world to address this problem create harmonized incentives to Red you believe in the tooth fairy no sir do you believe in the Easter Bunny no sir you believe that Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes no sir okay thank you Mr chairman Senator Braun thank you Mr chairman I'm in a thank you Mr chairman thank you all for being here today chairman bar we uh the the Federal Reserve rather stress tested 34 banks in 2022 is that correct uh Senator I I don't have the the exact number in front of me but that have your I have your report it says 34 and the cut off was1 billion dollar is that right yes okay um you didn't stress test Silicon Valley Bank did you no Under The Reserve Federal Reserve board's rules that were put in place um for transition into the stress testing it takes a while for a firm uh to be considered above the threshold they need to have a rolling four quarter average did stress test Silicon Valley Bank in 20 22 no okay uh silicon V Valley Bank had uh hundred billion dollar more than $100 billion in assets at the end of of 2021 did it not Senator as I was explaining that the transition rules in place at the time require a rolling four quarter average to be above that amount okay and then if the firm is happens to be in a year that isn't the year that since it's an every other year test that a test is is running right then it waits till the next year so for Silicon Valley Bank that would have meant 2024 would be its first stress test but the point is you didn't you didn't test Silicon Valley Bank we we did not apply a stress test to Silicon Valley Bank it was of course using its own stress test did you have the authority to do it um under our existing regulations no we would have to change our regulations to have that Authority under under the uh the the the congress's amendment to Dodd Frank Senator kpo talked about it 2155 section 252.5kg then was done right but you didn't did you the Federal Reserve did not do that okay um it if you had stress test so well let me let me put it this way if you had stress tested Silicon Valley Bank in 2022 it wouldn't have made any difference would it I don't know the answer to that question well you didn't test for Silicon Valley Bank's problem I've read your report your your stress test you stress tested these 34 banks for uh falling GDP spiking on employment in defaults and commercial real estate isn't that correct yes in a typical adverse scenario for banks we're testing falling interest rate but that wasn't our problem in 202 I completely agree with it's not our problem today the problem is inflation High interest rate and loss of value in government bonds isn't it I completely agree with you so you you you stress tested in 2022 for the wrong thing the stress test is not the primary way that the Federal Reserve or other Regulators test for interest rate risk but you you stress tested for the wrong thing as I said Senator I I agree with you that it would be useful to test for higher Rising interest rates that's why in our alternative scenario multiple scenario that we put in place for this year's stress test we do that the these decisions were made before I arrived but I I agree with you but it's like somebody going in for a test for U for Co and getting a test for chera isn't it I I don't know enough about either of those tests to know yeah well they're different um so all this business about well the do the amendment to Dodd Frank kept them from stress testing the way I see it you you chose not to stress test and if you had stress has Silicon Valley Bank you wouldn't have caught the problem as as I said Senator I agree with you that the the statute requires periodic stress testing the Federal Reserve made a decision about how to implement that in 20 in 2019 right that resulted in svb not being tested until planned to be tested until 2024 but as I said the stress test requirement you knew from the I'm sorry to cut you off but the Chairman's going to cut me off in a second but you knew the Federal Reserve knew well in advance that Silicon Valley Bank had a problem with holding too much of of its money in interest rate sensitive long government bonds didn't you I I think the investing public and the Federal Reserve which cited it um for interest rate risk problems knew that it had interest rate risk I think Federal anti do anything about it did it I'm sorry I couldn't hear you the Federal Reserve didn't do anything about it did it I I I disagree with that Senator respectfully that the the Federal Reserve did uh site these problems uh to the bank and require them to take action Bank management failed to act on those you didn't follow up did you senator's time has expired I think that I sit here and watch um Mr bar reluctant to criticize some of the moves of his predecessors at the Federal Reserve I'll leave it at that Senator Smith from Minnesota is recognized uh thank you Mr chair and thank thank you Mr chairman um Dr jagen yeah am I saying your name right te tell me if you were king for a day and you could rewrite America's tax code tell me the three changes you would make um number one I would equalize uh labor and Capital Tax burdens at the top there are a couple ways of doing that the billionaire minimum income tax is one that would move in that direction I won't rehash um those details um Senator Johnson actually talked about a corporate tax integration type what's number two sure um uh number two part of closing the labor and capital um uh uh disparity is closing the gingr Edwards loophole number three is ending um abuse of trusts so the estate tax has been eviscerated um many of those you take assets that you know are worth a lot right now they're purportedly worth a little because you haven't taken your company public you put them into a trust it explodes do you support a wealth tax do you know what I mean by a wealth tax I do know what you mean by wealth tax the billionaire minimum income tax taxes uh income and that I think is the way forward in that space well let me let me be a little more precise do do you do you think appreciation of assets that are not sold unrealized gain should be taxed I think you should have to prepay tax on it that will eventually be due at sale gift or bequest what do you mean prepay the tax sure so um if I have uh5 billion of unrealized capital gains I have $5 billion of taxable income and I'm currently paying one and a half billion on that so that's a 15% overall tax rate let's make no no let's don't complicate this I want to understand what you're saying let let's suppose um an American owns a piece of real estate they inherited from their father uh or their mother and um it was when they inherited it they got Step Up in bases it's worth $100,000 and all of a sudden the interstate came through and the property is now worth a million dollars if they sell it but they don't plan to sell it they're going to leave it to their kids do do you think that that that that American should have to pay tax on the unrealized gain the increase in value in general no at that at that level of wealth for example housing you think only wealthy people should at the very top it's hard to tax you know but let me be sure what I understand what you're saying all right let's suppose that's not just an average American let's suppose that's an America what do you define as rich in the minimum income tax it's $100 million of wealth or more okay so you you think if you're really wealthy you should have to pay a tax on your unrealized gain I think you should have to partially prepay if you're liquid if you have if you have liquidity to pay do do you think do you think somebody why why can't you Economist answer questions should someone should any American have to pay tax on unrealized gain why can't you just answer me yes there are some who should the ultra wealthy who have liquidity should prepay some taxes they don't have liquidity they should not have to pay and they will owe at sale bequest or um gift so if you have cash you ought have to pay but if you don't you don't have to pay to prepay I have a in my testimony there are examples of how this works so that you can preserve incentives to build a new company take it public okay while what do you think Dr McBride do you think we should start taxing un realized gain and what do you think think that'll do to the economy well I I have several concerns about the approach uh the first of which is it's completely untested uh it's never been tried in this country we have hundred more than a 100 Years of history with the income tax and Europe's tried it haven't they no they've tried wealth taxes their experience with wealth taxes has been how does that turn out uh bad umed in a lot of taxpayers exiting the country for for one thing and France for instance other uh countries that have tried it um and you sudden suddenly lose a big chunk of your tax base that you're trying to tax there um we have that option in this country as well um the the result has been that most of those countries in Europe that have tried a wealth tax have rolled them back yeah including France uh because they were administratively challenging uh the the basic challenge is trying is what you're describing trying to uh value um um assets without real Market track transactions uh so this is a evaluation dispute um it means the we get the IRS engaged in yet another challenge they're currently doing this with the estate tax those Estates um um that are that that are um subject to the estate tax those valuation epis can go years years years more can I have 30 more seconds proceed um Dr is it clausing Clauson yes yeah wh why why do you why do you and Dr jagen why do y'all want to punish wealthy people I I think I can speak for both of us that we're not interested in punishing anyone we're interested interested in taxing the hell out of them system more than anybody else I think why makes you think what makes you think that making tax policy on the basis of of class or status makes sense I think it's a very American phenomena that throughout the history of the income tax we have valued progressivity and our current income tax does that um we used to rely on things like tariffs to raise revenue tariffs are aggressive consumption taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor like we believe in this country that those with a greater ability to pay should pay more of the burden um and that's part of what a healthy capitalism does it enables uh people to gain from things like trade and technological change and business Innovation and to contribute a little more to the fiscal system when they're very successful in doing so and I think that that's a very legitimate way to structure the tax system can can I ask you a question yes why do you think so many wealthy people are leaving New York City New York City is you know an incredible city of innovation uh immigration on yeah but why are so many wealthy people living I think there are there are big advantages to living near centers of entrepreneurial activity and we see that on the on the you think they're leaving to be nearer to centers of entrepreneurial activity do you well I don't think there are a lot of people you know fleeing uh New York City that New York City has sure they are they're thousands I mean they've been study after study after study why are so many wealthy people leaving New York City I think there's an enormous number of wealthy people who are in New York City and Contin but why are so many leaving I I can't speak to why particular people I can tell you why taxes you know that as well as I do it's taxes I think if you look at the economic some of it's crime but most of it is taxes well people vote with their feet the same reason that people are leaving California and moving to Austin if if you look at California it's one of the most successful economies in the world and it continues to be so it attracts people but they're losing people I don't think it's in any danger of of decline nor is New York City um and these are very vibrant places I don't think we're going to ever agree yeah I don't think we're going to ever agree um but I appreciate the time of all three of you thank you to be fair there also are people moving the other way there are people who move to New York they just don't all leave from New York it's a two-way street in and out of New York and it's a two-way street between Austin and California people leave Texas and go to California and some of them do very well well that's true Sheldon but I can show you study after study after study as you would well know and as the professor knows it shows that people are leaving High tax states and moving to low tax states all you have to do is they also leave all you have to do is look at the demographics take pick the nine states that have say a state income tax and compare that or that don't have a state income tax and compare that to that to the states that do it's called tax avoidance and there's nothing wrong with it it's perfectly legal people have different preferences you know if you look at where immigrants choose to live in the United States they often go to those same places that you were talking about you know so I I do think that you know there's movement in both directions yeah but but here's what here's my point here's what I think rational people do and here's what I bet all three of you would do and I bet sherid would do I mean uh Sheldon would do it because he's a smart guy okay if he if if he won the lottery tomorrow and won $10 million and paid his taxes and has $6 million left he's going to at least consider you are to moving to Florida because they don't have a state income tax for the record no I wouldn't never crossed my mind well most ration well I don't mean you're IR rational you know that it can be quite rational to not but when you're liquid when you're liquid and you don't have to pay a a 6% off the top versus 0% it's a rational economic move is it not um yeah I I agree it's rational I mean um I mean the thing about taxes that we're we're talking about is they're a cost or a price and so claiming that the this cost or Price doesn't matter is essentially throwing out the very basic law of demand Basics the basic uh fundamental um idea in economics the prices matter the costs matter see this what this is what this always balls down to and there's no there's no way we'll ever agree okay but at least two of you believe that government all things being equal can spend a dollar better than people can and and and I that's that's your you're this is America you can believe that for the record that's not in their testimony I just I just don't agree with you I I think people can spend the dollar better all things being equal and and all you have to do if you if you know the history of government you know that that I'm right but I don't expect you to agree with me because you're professors okay thanks Sheldon always entertaining Senator Kennedy thank you so much for being here Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman thank you all for being here today um Professor Goodwin help me understand your point of view um I think this is a yes or no question do do you support um it being legal to abort an unborn uh child up to the moment of birth Senator Kennedy it is not a yes or no question I support women like Miss zeroski women across ma' I I don't I I I think it is a yes or no question no well let me if there were a law that's I'm just trying to understand your perspective and I'm not accusing you of this of course not but but you know people sort of talk around this issue if there were a bill that said that a a woman has an unfettered right to abort an unch unborn baby for any reason up to the moment of birth would you vote Yes or would you vote no Senator Kennedy I refuse to be Shackled by your question what I have answered is that there are conditions that Ur vote Yes or no there are conditions during pregnancy that mean after 10 weeks I said on disc 24 weeks condition such as moski support I would support her life I would support her personhood but you're advocating a law I support her person advocating a law that says that an unborn baby can be aborted up to the moment of birth for any reason are you not let me clear clarify what the 14th Amendment says in the first sentence that citizens of this United States are individuals that are born that is what our constitution says my question Professor I'm not trying to argue I just want to understand what your position is and I think you're afraid to say that you do support that if you do support it I think you for just for the purpose of the of a intellectual discussion you ought to just say so for purposes of an intellectual discussion I'm happy to have that with you but that's you answer my could you answer my question do you support please I mean you teach okay I'm sure you've had students asked this question do you support do you support making it legal to abort an unborn baby for any reason any reason up to the moment before birth Senator let's have that intellectual discussion that you want we could start if you'd answer right question I can't go to my next question until you answer that question I want you to be able to go to your second and your third questions I do but as I have explained there are many different conditions no I said discretion no conditions I'm making it easy for you well I have already shared with you Senator that I support women I don't want to use all my time you're not going to answer and that is your right but I would I would respect you more if you just say here's my that you don't respect respect you but I said I'd respect you more if you just answer my question doctor tell me how to say your last name Ruben hor Miss Dr Ruben horse uh do you support a law that would allow for any reason unfed or discretion the the uh the the the abortion of an unborn child up until the moment of birth no you don't Dr Verma Senator Kennedy so I'm the one person in One doctor in this room that does provide abortion care and I can tell you that does not reflect the reality of abortion care understand I'm just asking the question it simply doesn't Happ do you support it there there are bills before Congress that will allow that to happen that's you don't support it or you going to be a not answer my question as the doctor in this room who does provide abortion care that is not how abortion care in this country works it's a hypothetical that does a disservice came to you and said uh I I'm going to probably have a baby this week and I've changed my mind and I would like you doctor to abort the child would you do it that is not how abortion care in this country but if a patient did would you do it my job as a doctor is to look at each individual situation I'm sorry I don't mean to R be rude but I can tell neither you and the pr Professor w't answer my question I think you both have an opinion and I don't understand why you won't share it I have we G to solve this problem I've provided care for a few years and I've never seen that situation how about you do would you I I do not support unfettered abortion and I would like to point out that if a woman did have a life-threatening condition in pregnancy past approximately 22 weeks that baby can be delivered Alive by induction or C-section and we can try to save that baby the intent of abortion is a dead baby and that is not necessary in that situation I mean I I want you to all understand where I'm coming from this is a tough issue and it's a tough issue because some there's some tough questions we've got to answer and when you won't answer the questions when you're invited by the my Democratic friends the majority and you won't answer the most fundamental question we've got a bill in front of us that will basically say a a woman has the unfettered right to abort at any time for any reason up to the moment of birth and that's a gut check issue and I would expect you as experts to answer that truthfully how you do it thank you for your Indulgence Mr chairman Senator asof thank you Mr chairman and uh thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us and sharing your experiences and perspective um it's been tremendously impactful to hear from you and Mr chairman I do want to note and acknowledge that we have a a Georgia physician uh with us and and Dr Verma um thank you for your work uh providing Health Care uh for Georgia women at a time of Louisiana is recognized thank you Mr chairman uh thank you all for being here I appreciate your passion Mr tisler uh do you think the federal government should be making it more expensive to build affordable housing absolutely not sir okay um well it is um to to u to to build a home of course I think we can agree on this requires money and the people who loan that money of course expect to be paid back um and they expect to protect their collateral which is the affordable home um the mortgage e or the person who loans the money often times requires that the homeowner carry Insurance can we agree on that yes sir and more and more uh the mortgage e the person loaning the money requires the homeowner to carry flood insurance yet while you are here advocating as we all are for affordable housing our federal government through FEMA is uh is working as hard as it can to increase the cost of flood insurance um the FEMA hired a a company called Millman um to write a new algorithm which Melman says can look at every individual home in the United States and predict its flood risk over the next 30 Years amazing there's just one problem they won't share with anyone the algorithm and as a result of that algorithm um National flood insurance costs have gone I'll give you the national figure um from 88 bucks to $188 now I I I'll give you some concrete examples in in my state we call counties parishes St Mary Parish the median household income is $4,000 roughly the new flood insurance rate in St Mary parishes is $522 a year as a result of FEMA's actions that doesn't include homeowners that doesn't include property taxes that doesn't include liability insurance that's Flood now how can you build an affordable home for someone when they have to pay half of the cost of the home when you add up all this insurance have to carry uh in the insurance uh Senator I can't speak to FEMA um because I I don't know how they arrive at that yes but I guess that was an unfair question why aren't the the three of you I'm not criticizing you I may make it this a general suggestion why don't you take a look at what FEMA is doing to the cost of building an affordable home in America because you're not going to have any there's not there's no free hun and you don't get one now I mean they're making it impossible to build a affordable housing in America and I think the three of you respectfully ought to take a look at that and the impact on affordable housing in our country um Miss gel you you did I say your name right it's yentel thank yentel I'm sorry uh you talked about zoning let's take California for example I don't mean to pick on California I love California it's a beautiful State it's very expensive to own a home there can we agree on that yes so people when they buy a home working people poor and middle class not many people poor cany afford to buy a home it costs so much that their home becomes their 401K they can't save anything I mean they have to put the money in the into equity in their home and so they want to protect the value of that home and they communicate that to their elected officials so their elected officials despite what they say make it very difficult through their zoning decisions to build affordable housing despite their their their left of center politics isn't that what's going on that's absolutely true and Cali it's it's California is a prime example of what happens when very very restrictive local zoning ordinances prevent the construction of any type of housing multif family housing and especially affordable housing and the result is that it drives up costs for everyone and it certainly squeezes the lowest income renters the most but California is not alone uh this is a pattern that no but it's the best example isn't it it is a prime example yes okay thank you Mr chairman Dr is it clausing yes clausing yes yeah wh why why do you why do you and Dr jagen why do y'all want to punish wealthy people I I think I can speak for both of us that we're not interested in punishing anyone we're interested ined in taxing the hell out of them more than anybody else why Mak you think what makes you think that making tax policy on the basis of of class or status make sense I think it's a very American phenomena that throughout the history of the income tax we have valued progressivity and our current income tax does that um we used to rely on things like tariffs to raise revenue tariffs are regressive consumption taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor like we believe in this country that those with a greater ability to pay should pay more of the burden um and that's part of what a healthy capitalism does it enables uh people to gain from things like trade and technological change and business Innovation and to contribute a little more to the fiscal system when they're very successful in doing so and I think that that's a very legitimate way to structure the tax system can can I ask you a question yes why do you think so many wealthy people are leaving New York City New York City is you know an incredible city of innovation uh immigration Entre but why are so many wealthy people living I think there are there are big advantages to living near centers of entrepreneurial activity and we see that on the on the you think they're leaving to be nearer to centers of entrepreneurial activity do you well I don't think there are a lot of people you know fleeing uh New York City that New York City has sure they are there thousands I mean they've been study after study after study why are so many wealthy people leaving New York City I think there's an enormous number of wealthy people who were in New York City and Contin but why are so many leaving I I can't speak to why particular I can tell you why it's taxes you know that as well as I do it's taxes I think if you look at the economic some of it's crime but most of it is taxes well you people vote with their feet the same reason that people are leaving California and moving to Austin if if you look at California as one of the most successful economies in the world and it continues to be so it attracts people but they're losing people I don't think it's in any danger of of decline nor is New York City um and these are very vibrant places I don't think we're gonna ever agree yeah I don't think we're gonna ever agree um but I appreciate the time of all three of you thank you to be fair there also are people moving the other way there are people who move to New York they just don't all leave from New York it's a two-way street in and out of New York and it's a two-way street between Austin and California people leave Texas and go to California and some of them do very well well that's true Sheldon but I can show you study after study after study as you well know and as the professor knows that shows that people are leaving High tax states and moving to low tax states all you have to do is they also leave all you have to do is look at the demographics take pick the nine states that have say a state income tax and compare that or that don't have a state income tax and compare that to that to the states that do it's called tax avoidance and there's nothing wrong with it it's perfectly legal people have different preferences you know if you look at where immigrants choose to live in the United States they often go to those same places that you were talking about you know so I I do think that you know there's movement in both directions yeah but but here's what here's my point here's what I think rational people do and here's what I bet all three of you would do and I bet shared would do I mean uh Sheldon would do it because he's a smart guy okay if he if if he won the lottery tomorrow and won $10 million and paid his taxes and has $6 million left he's going to at least consider you are to moving to Florida because they don't have a state income tax for the record no I wouldn't never crossed my mind well most rational well I don't mean you're a rational sh you know that it can be quite rational to not but when you're liquid when you're liquid and you don't have to pay a a a 6% off the top versus 0% it's a rational economic move is it not um yeah I I agree it's rational mean um I mean the thing about taxes that we're we're talking about is they're a cost or a price and so claiming that the this cost or Price doesn't matter is essentially throwing out the very basic law of demand Basics the basic uh fundamental um idea in economics the prices matter that cost matter see this what this is what this always boils down to and there's no there's no way we'll ever agree okay but at least two of you believe that government all things being equal can spend a dollar better than people can and and and I that's that's your this is America you can believe that for the record that's not in their testimony I just I just don't agree with you I I think people can spend the dollar better all things being equal and and all you have to do if you if you know the history of government you know that that I'm right but I don't expect you to agree with me because you're professors thank you uh Madam chair could you put that up for me right quick yes sir thank you ma'am General I know you can't see that uh but it's a page from your website and let me let me read you the relevant sentence it says the Mississippi River and tributaries project which of course is how we pay for flood control and levies the Mississippi River and tributaries project has prevented more than 1.5 trillion dollar not billion trillion in flood damages since 1928 are $95 for every $1 invested this is from your website how was this compiled that that data compiled General yes sir so it's it's simply taking the cost of the project and comparing it to the benefits that that you're describing structure saved Acres preserved uh Recreation opportunities uh so it's a comparison between the the the simple math between the cost and and benefits so so you so you have the ability at the core your economists and others to calculate losses potential losses yes sir we do and what what this is telling me is that without the core of engineers work funded as I described with respect to levies and flood control the American people would have sustained damages of $1.5 trillion is that right yes sir I believe that's correct okay here here's what I'm getting at General if you have this ability and I believe you do I'm not suggesting that this isn't accurate I'm very grateful that this is accurate and I'm very grateful to the core but if your folks have this ability to to put a value on the potential losses are we that we are averting why doesn't that play a bigger role in your cost benefit analysis when you're looking at the feasibility of a project yes sir so this is clearly is a great question clearly something the core has to get better on in comprehensive benefits so I'll just give you two areas sir where we are trying to improve uh we have a number of flood risk management projects and navigation projects that have a national security implication we're working on one in North Dakota and and in Min not you could use the Sue locks as an example um the port of gnome in Alaska it's a remote in subsistence Harbor but the Coast Guard and navy can use that so we're challenged on those type of projects to quantify the national security benefit uh we have flood risk management projects today in Selma Alabama or in Princeville North Carolina that preserve C cultural and historic properties and we struggle to put a monetary value on that but it's something with the secretary's leadership sir we we absolutely get it we it's something we have to to improve upon well General I'm misspoke I said one point .5 trillion the real figure is 2.7 trillion which your work has prevented $2.7 trillion in Damages and your economists you stand by that number I assume yes sir and your economists have a way to come up with that number that's correct it just makes no sense to me if if we can quantify the losses that would be prevented by building a flood control project that that we wouldn't make that one of the determining factors in the cost benefit analysis I I mean I gave you the statistic the the the the the U Morganza of the Gul Levy system prevented damage flooding to 12,000 homes and you can quantify that don't you think we ought to change the formula a little bit the way you're describing a loss prevented is a is a benefit of these uh of these projects uh the Morganza example I would argue sir we have many of those we have many moras across the country that we have to get better on in resourcing I'm going to ask you one quick question the time I have left the price of the comid river diversion Canal has gone up $500 million how I know inflation but wow yeah yes sir what are we going to do about that sir you've got inflation down the the thing that we uh were taking on this is a great example where we have to get better at communicating to the Committees and to Congress and administration the cost estimates that we give you in a Chiefs report in paragraph 11 and we give you a number with some decimal points on it for a project they may be constructed down the road but what we don't give you uh is the percent design that that cost estimate is based on so in a 3X3 study a district might get to a 10% level design or a four-year study they might get to 25% uh and then as that design is like it is now today in coat you're finding that there are additional requirements that we get as we get deeper into the Geotech and to the uh the sizing of some of these structures that's what we're experiencing here and it's something we've got to get better on in communicating to you and other how do we get that number we got a hell of a mess here General okay my people expected this to be done we brought it in on time I mean and then all of a sudden bam $500 million how we going to get this price now sir you have our commitment that we're going to work through this we're committed to finishing this I don't have all the answers here today uh I can share my commitment that we will get this done thank you thank you madam chair thank you Senator hinr thank you madam chair uh commissioner Tuton um I want to ask you about how you're balancing the drought relief efforts across the the west and I think I think it's clear that as Reservoir levels in the Colorado Basin have dropped it's really captured the attention of the country but for the Colorado BAS and um on April 4th 2019 the americ American civil liberties Union paid for justice soda mayor's trip to San Juan Puerto Rico you ever been to San Juan Mr Fogle is it expensive I keep forgetting uh well it depends when you go yeah how much you think it costs to go down there uh depends whether you fly first class or economy what if you fly first class oh probably a couple thousand dollars okay yeah uh ACLU do they have cases in front of the Supreme Court all the time they do all the time sure do do you think the ACLU was was trying to bribe Justice soda myor no sir I don't I don't either I don't either but that's the unstated premise of all this well Senator if I all these articles about Clarence Justice Clarence Thomas and the Chief Justice in the United States and Justice gor zuch who sold an interest in an LLC to a to a to a to a democratic donor who had never met that they bought him isn't it may may I say something response Senator I think there are two things going on here today I I think there is a political conflict which is as I said earlier it's very intense it's hyperarid have things to say and then I think there's an ethical issue when you accuse people of being bribed it kind of kind of gets their attention sir hold on a second I'm not accusing anybody of being bribed I'm not but some people are some people are the reason I'm here is I think that there is an ethical issue that as Senator Graham said earlier it would be good for the court to think about in terms of being being more transparent that is what I care about that's the only thing I care about there's a lot of political back and forth that's very interesting I I'm very interested in it as a citizen of the United States but I I think the most useful thing that this or any other committee could do is think about how do we make our institution you going to do that in the context though o of of one of our leaders for whom I have great respect going on the steps of the United States Supreme Court telling two justices if they vote in a way he doesn't like they will pay the price and reap the Whirlwind and you have another one of your Witnesses here tweeting out stuff saying quote some justices or politicians and robes who thrive in a system where access influence are for sale y he said they were bought like a sack of potatoes okay I'm not I'm not true I'm not going to comment on that Senator that that's not anything I had anything to do with so I think did I hear the gavl I hope thank you Senator Kennedy Senator hono I'm sorry I got it wrong Blumenthal Senator Blumenthal Miss um um can I can't see your name I can't see Hopper Miss Hopper Miss Hopper I I love solar energy I just want you to know that and I love electric cars but I got to ask you this question I've been waiting to ask this uh if electric cars are so swell how come government has to pay people to drive them so I think um as like most most government policies right are are put in place to incent certain behaviors and so that's part of the policy is that if we want more electric but if they're so swell why couldn't they in just in a competitive market you people why wouldn't they be choosing e electric cars over internal combustion engine cars I think there why do we have to pay people to drive them but I don't I wouldn't characterize as paying people to drive them but I would sure we are we're giving a big old tax credit the government having a policy to incent more uh purchase of electric vehicles okay senator faab now thank you Mr chairman thank you Senator Kennedy Senator Kennedy thank you madam chair Mr Right and Miss Hernandez thank you both for being here Mr Wright do you own a home I do do you have a mortgage I do does your mortgage company require you to carry homeowners insurance it does okay suppose you're homeowner's insurance insurer came to you and said look Mr W I can't tell you why but I'm going to start raising your premium 18% a year because we hired this this group called Milan and they've come up with this magical algorithm that can take a look at your home not your neighbor's homes but your home and predict over the next uh 30 years you risk every single year of whether you're going to have a fire M and so we're going to start raising ing your rates 18% a year we can't tell you how long we're going to stop raising those rates we can't and and um um um um and and we can't explain to you the minimum algorithm because it's secret if we showed it to you we'd have to kill you what would you do you know I I get increases in the cost find a new health try to find a new insurer uh I would ask questions uh to seek to understand and I may shop for another insurer what if you what if you can't shop what what if there are no other insurers and your mortgage company says no you've got to take this insurance well Senator I I think that as we look at these Dimensions there are pieces of algorithms as you speak to uh that we should be clear and show folks what those pieces are and we have to understand doesn't FEMA doesn't FEMA has rolled out this program they won't share the algorithm their 500,000 Insurance federal uh flood insurance policies in America 10% of them are in my state my people don't have million dooll mansions on the gulf these are working people right and they their their their uh their mortgage company requires them to carry food insurance is the only way to get it for example in Cameron Parish the the average new cost of flood insurance there is $4,440 and household income is $48,000 and and the wind in pl's Parish the new the new price for insurance is $543 the median household income is $65,000 in St Mary Parish the new a new flood insurance policy call F cost $ 5,226 and the median household income is $4,210 impact of the levies and FEMA says we don't have to answer that and then my people go to FEMA and and they say well why are you doing this well we have this new algorithm and they say can can we see the algorithm to hire somebody to look at the algorithm and see if you're see if to see if you're considering levies and they say oh no if we show you the algorithm um we'll have to kill you and then my people find out that in 2022 in a secret memo that FEMA didn't want to come out they're estimating FEMA estimates that 900,000 policy holders 20% of all the policy holders for flood insurance in the com country they figure they're going to drop their insurance now what's the point of flood insurance if nobody can afford it and what's the point of having a federal agency paid for with people's tax pair dollars if they won't explain to the people what they're doing so senator you are you still far risk rating 2.0 so Senator I am 5 years removed from making decisions in FEMA and yes I was the person who launched risk raing 2.0 and so we've had these conversations and I I'm happy to continue to do so well you didn't no not this isn't personal to you I don't know what your involvement was but the people that implemented this and rolled it out in this manner ought to hide their head in a bag so I do think that FEMA should be transparent about what they're doing I also know that these Insurance calculations are more like calculus than they are arithmetic but the risks are growing the cost of wind Insurance in Southern Louisiana is just as high or higher and so I think there's an affordability need for sure um but we've got to look at this yes FEMA should be showing the pieces um we need to make sure people understand it I think people need to know which mitigation have a difference they not and Senator right you know that nor do the people at Fe must seem to care I can all I can say to you is that there are increasing risks those costs in some places I was Jus in Cameron and kashu Parish last month I understand this they're still recovering from uh from Ida and Laura that came through I've got to wrap this up if the IRS came to you and said we we I don't know how much money you make I don't want to know if the IRS came to you and said we've going to do your taxes for you this year Mr Wright you owe four million in income taxes but we can't tell you how we came up with the figure you think that'd be fair that that would not be a fair action by it chman and thanks to all of our Witnesses who have joined us today um Mr Payne let me start with you sir you're kind of in the middle here uh you work for the campaign legal Center is that right that's correct is your your website campaign legal.org correct okay does not the front page of your website say I'm going to quote here I want to get it right the current US Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy the current US Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy did I read that right I what I can say is that our uh organization but is that on your website I am not certain exactly what's on the here it is right here big as Dallas what that refers to is the voting rights legislation I mean voting rights cases of the Supreme Court uh our organization is a voting rights organization that fights for all Americans that have the ability to vote yeah but you got a click a bunch of times to find that explanation I just want to make sure I read that correctly um a few months ago Mr Payne you twe you retweeted the following statement some justices are politicians and robes who thrive in a system where access and influence are for sale some justices are politicians in robes who thrive in a system where access and influence are for sale now that's a pretty bold statement is I'm sorry Senator is that a news article t no sir that's a that's a retweet here you you tweeted this out tell me which justices are for sale uh I don't recall that tweet but uh here it is November 21 2022 can you tell me which justices are for sale uh no are any of them for sale no the problem is that the American public has a perception that some I want I want to establish the point first I want to know you tweeted this out do you believe that some justices are for sale and if so which ones no uh Senator I do not believe that justices are then why don't you tweet this out what can you provide more context of what I'll get you a copy but here it is I okay checked it and triple checked it you also said less than a month ago that that John Roberts you retweeted this out John Roberts is a disgrace no actually kind I disagree with with with with Justice Roberts well you didn't call him chief justice Roberts you called him John Roberts no this is are you you retweeted this no Senator I did not retweet that yes sir you did right here I will can you provide a copy to me now but I did not read can you tell me why you think chief justice Roberts is a disgrace I did not say that did not retweet that oh okay maybe maybe Twitter got it wrong someone got it wrong let me ask you this cuz the understated the unstated premise of all this sometimes it's stated but the stated premise of all all this is that is that some justices have been bribed let's just cut to the chase okay now let me let me stay with you Mr Pay um well let me go to Mr Fogle I don't want to just pick on you Mr Fain you you can you can be looking up on Twitter where you said those things um on April 4th 2019 the americ American civil liberties Union paid for justice soda mayor's trip to San Juan Puerto Rico you ever been to San Juan Mr fog is it expensive I keep forgetting um well it depends when you go yeah how much you think it costs to go down there uh depends whether you fly first class or economy what if you fly first class oh probably a couple thousand dollars okay yeah uh ACLU do they have cases in front of the Supreme Court all the time they do all the time sure do do you think the ACLU was was trying to bribe justice so myor no sir I don't I don't either I don't either but that's the unstated premise of all this well Senator if I all these articles about Clarence Justice Clarence Thomas and the Chief Justice in the United States and Justice gor zuch who sold an interest in an LLC to a to a to a to a democratic donor who had never met that they bought him isn't it may may I say something response Senator I think there are two things going on here today I think there is a political conflict which is as I said earlier it's very intense it's hyperarid have things to say and then I think there's an ethical issue when you accuse people of being bribed it kind of kind of gets their attention sir hold on a second I'm not accusing anybody of being bribed I'm not but some people are some people are the reason I'm here is I think that there is an ethical issue that as Senator Graham said earlier it would be good for the court to think about in terms of being more transparent that is what I care about that's the only thing I care about there's a lot of political back and forth that's very interesting I I'm interested in it as a citizen of the United States but I I think the most useful thing that this or any other committee could do is think about how do we make our institution well how are you going to do that in the context though o of of one of our leaders for whom I have great respect going on the steps of the United States Supreme Court telling two justices if they vote in a way he doesn't like they will pay the price and the Whirlwind and you have another one of your Witnesses here tweeting out stuff saying quote some justices or politicians and robes who thrive in a system where access and fluence are for sale yeah he said they were bought like a sack of potatoes okay I'm not I'm not true I'm not going to comment on that Senator that that's not anything I had anything to do with so I think did I hear the gavl I hope thank you Senator Kennedy senator Rono I'm sorry I got it wrong Blumenthal Senator Blumenthal uh can you play the video for me Mr Shay I want to ask you play it let's go that still looks like me fortunately Andor unfortunately yes it the only way we're going to do this thing is if we start a bank from scratch scratch you got to be kidding how World you do that is there a book how to build a bank for dummies all we have to do is apply to 19 federal and state banking agencies wouldn't it be easier just to go out and buy a bank we looked at that but the prices are too expensive and we'd be stuck with all their legacy ISS we have to make our own mistakes but then we have nobody to blame but ourselves we have nobody to blame but ourselves we have nobody to blame that is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard of the stank of the big Bank absurd what a terrible proposition like convincing the world to e what possible fate will become of our bank other than to diminish and I happen to know for a fact that won't happen seriously why not because we start [Music] sign Mr sh you're on that video aren't you yes I'm in that video and you showed that video to the public um that video was designed as a morale boosting but did you show it to the public it was uh shown at the employee parties and used shown for but did the public see it they may have seen that yes and and you were trying to invite people to take their hard-earned money and Trust entrust it to you to spend it wisely and you showed them this video that video had a positive impact onlo colle enjoyed who enjoyed watching went broke anticipating how much time did you spend you you conducted pronoun seminars didn't you uh I what's the pronoun zadar um I introduced a seminar organized by 300 of my colleagues just as I went to Ping tourament is you you enter you you spent a lot of time doing pronoun seminars uh lecturing people about how they ought to use the right pronoun gender neutral pronouns didn't you I actually spent no time Beyond introducing that I could show the seminars but I won't do it I was what did that Senator Kennedy your time has expired Senator Reed from Rhode Island thank you very much Mr never mind for being here Mr Becker when uh when interest rates go up the price of government bonds especially long longterm long maturity government bonds goes down doesn't it yes and you don't have to be Einstein's cousin to know that do you no you don't okay now your bank had uh 5% of its assets invested in government bonds didn't it roughly yes and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates didn't it yes it did and the value of your assets went down dramatically didn't they yes it did okay and and you didn't have Hedges did you Senator as previously mentioned the decision around Hedges was made by our Isa liability committee Mr Becker you were the CEO of the bank you didn't have Hedges did she Senator there were Hedges that were put in place but I don't recall the details around when they were put in place you're the CEO and you didn't you had 55% of your assets in government bonds and you don't know whether you were hedged or not Senator as previously mentioned I don't have access to my svb document so well here's I know that and I wasn't CEO you weren't hedged now if You' bought those Hedges that would have cut into your profits wouldn't it Senator I don't know the details of the decisions that the team were evaluating but if you bought a hedge the Hedge cost money and it would have decreased your profits wouldn't it do Hedges cost money yes they do and so if you bought Hedges you'd have less money right Senator it depends upon yes they would cost money but it depends upon how the and if you'd made less money that would have affected your bonus wouldn't it Senator our compensation was predominantly long-term in nature and so I know there's been lots of discussions about compensation being shortterm from beer you made a really stupid bet that that went bad didn't you Senator and the taxpayers of America had to pick up the tab for your stupidity didn't they Senator there were a series of events unprecedented events that occurred that led us to where we are today no this wasn't unprecedented this was bone deep down to the marrow stupid you put all your eggs in one basket you put all your eggs in one basket and unless unless you were living on the International Space Station you could see that interest rates were rising and you weren't hedged thank thank you all for being here permit me to share with you three hypotheses that I would like you to assume for the moment to be true um hypothesis number one many members of Congress do not understand artificial intelligence apothesis number two that absence of understanding may not prevent Congress from plunging in with enthusiasm and trying to regulate this technology in a way that could hurt this technology hypothesis number three that I would like you to assume there is likely a berserk wing of the artificial intelligence community that intentionally or unintentionally could use artificial intelligence to kill all of us and hurt us the entire time that we are dying assume all of those to be true please tell me in plain English two or three reforms regulations if any that you would you would Implement if you were queen or King for a Day Miss MCG S I think it comes back again to transparency and explainability in AI um we absolutely need to know and have companies attest what do you mean by transparency so disclosure of the data that's used to train AI disclosure of the model and how it performs and making sure that there's continuous governance over these models that we are the leading Ed technology governance organizational governance um rules and clarification that are needed that this R Congress I mean this is your chance folks to tell us how to get this right please use it right I mean I think again the rules should be focused on the use of AI in certain contexts so if you look at for example so if you look at the EU AI act it has certain um uses of AI that it says are just simply too dangerous and will be outlawed in the okay so we ought to first pass a law that says you can use AI for these uses but not others is that is that what you're saying we need to define the highest risk uses is anything else um and then of course uh requiring things like impact assessments and transparency requiring companies to show their work um protecting data that's used to train AI in the first place as well Professor Marcus if you could be specific this is your shot man talk in plain English and tell me what if any rules we ought to implement and please don't just use Concepts I'm looking for specificity number one a safety review like we use with the FDA prior to widespread deployment if you're going to uh introduce something to 100 million people somebody has to have their eyeballs on it there you go okay that's a good one number not sure I agree with it but that's a good one what else you didn't ask for three that you would agree with number two a Nimble monitoring agency to follow what's going on not just pre-review um but also post as things are out there in the world with authority to call things back which we've discussed today and number three would be funding geared towards things like AI Constitution AI that can reason about what it's doing I would not leave things entirely to current technology which I think is poor at behaving in ethical fashion and behaving in honest fashion um and so I would have funding to try to basically focus on AI Safety Research that term has a lot of complications in my field um there's both safety let's say shortterm and longterm and I think we need to look at both rather than just funding models to be bigger which is the popular thing to do we need to fund models to be more trustworthy because I want to hear from Mr Alton Mr Alton here's your shot thank you Senator uh number one I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards number two I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations one example that we've used in the past is looking to see if a model can self-replicate and ex self exfiltrate into the wild we can give you office a long other list of the things that we think are important there but specific tests that a model has to pass before it can be deployed into the world and then third uh I would require independent audits so not just from the company or the agency but experts who can say the model is or isn't in compliance with these stated safety thresholds and these percentages of performance on question X or Y can you send me that information we will do that um would you be qualified to uh to to uh if we promulgated those rules to administer those rules I love my current job cool are are there people out there that would be qualified we'd be happy to send you recommendations for people out there yes okay you make a lot of money do you I make no I I paid enough for health insurance I have no equity and open AI really that's interesting you need a lawyer I need a what you need a lawyer or an agent I I'm doing this because I love it thank you Mr chairman thanks Senator Kennedy uh Senator Herona thank you Mr chairman listening to to all of I'm want to hear from Mr Alton Mr Altman here's your shot thank you Senator uh number one I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards number two I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations one example that we've used in the past is looking to see if a model can self-replicate and ex self exfiltrate into the wild we can give you office a long other list of the things that we think are important there but specific tests that a model has to pass before it can be deployed into the world and then third uh I would require independent audits so not just from the company or the agency but experts who can say the model is or isn't in compliance with these stated safety thresholds and these percentages of performance on question X or Y can you send me that information we will do that um would you be qualified to uh to to uh if we promulgated those rules to administer those rules I love my current job cool are there people out there that would be qualified we' be happy to send you recommendations for people out there yes okay you make a lot of money do you I make no I I paid enough for health insurance I have no equity and open AI really that's interesting you need a lawyer I need a what you need a lawyer or an agent I I'm doing this because I love it thank you Mr chairman thanks Senator Kennedy uh Senator Herona U Mr car I hope the only reason that you're going to appear on CNN is for the quality of your peaches Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman um it seems to me that that America was born on a farm and uh you can't operate a farm without workers we can't defeat ourselves of the of the our world's Neighbors without without Farm Workers and sometimes we we need help from Neighbors who live in foreign countries is that a fair statement Mr Costa yes I believe immigrants play an important role um Mr C do you believe that illegal immigration is illegal under the statutes yes okay um Mr Sakira am I saying your name right you do you agree with that statement yes sir um Mr cost what what grade abcdf would you give President Biden's Administration on combating illegal immigration I I I don't know what grade I would put I think they've made they've made some uh useful improvements um but uh you know I I think that the the Border has there's so much money going to the border that I think the border is mostly secure people are mostly turning themselves in they're not really crossing the border author you can't give a grade you're an expert on on immigration and you can't give a grade oh I I guess if I had to I'd it probably be about a c right in the middle somewhere a c or a d uh a c because they kept some Trump policies in place they've made some improvements they're sort of in between okay how about you Mr Sakura are we grading on a curve Senator no sir um I would be generous and say a D minus okay all right C can can we agree that either President Biden's Administration believes in open borders are the person that he has put in charge of making immigration policy is not qualified to manage a food truck I would fully reject the notion that the Biden Administration believes in open borders okay how about you Mr secure at the risk of being too lawyerly I I might be interested in the definition of open borders I think it's certainly fair to say there is uh a signif a lack of significant enforcement at the border and in fact my clients who well let let me try to let me try to put a finer point on it right now we have conscientious Farm Workers who live in other countries some of whom have worked here before we have Nigerian doctors we have German engineers who are waiting years patiently in line trying to follow the rules of legal immigration to come into our country but yet the Biden Administration will welcome anybody who can either secretly or less than secretly come into the United States from the southern border is that not correct I I don't believe so I believe that the people showing up at the border are mostly seeking humanitarian protections because there's a DI need in this hemisphere how about how about you Mr Secura do you think that my description is correct I do Senator and then that seems to be obvious from watching The Evening News well the agencies are responsible for the legal immigration system Mr Costa are failing to process applications promptly aren't they for I would say it depends for for low AG uh work visas uh they are uh mostly processing them quite quickly we got a backlog of 24 million applications that do you mean it depends it depends on which Visa you're talking about I would say for h2b for instance uh the USC Prides themselves on how quickly they process those those visas when when it comes to other things like work permits they've been they've been slow and I think the problem is that Congress has not appropriated funds for them they they have this structure money we're now we now have a larger federal budget adjusted for inflation than we've ever had in the history of the United States of America but with all due respect always the money Mr Sakira um what kind of job do you think that the Biden Administration is done with legal immigration with the 24 million person backlog I think any Fair estimation is that it's poor well can we agree that legal immigration is good and and illegal immigration is bad I would think so the country is founded on immigration people coming here from other countries legal immigration is good yes does anybody disagree with that statement does anybody want to defend the Biden Administrations 24 million people backlog in legal immigration but yet Millions have come illegally across the border does anybody want to defend that anybody thank you for being here Senator Padia thank you Mr chair I want to thank you and uh ranking member Graham uh for uh convening this hearing there's a limited uh Kennedy is next thank you Mr chairman and thanks Senator Kane okay uh thanks Mr chairman and thanks to all of our our Witnesses here today uh Professor payer on May 5th of this year you put out a tweet you said I'm going to quote there are some things money can't buy for everything else there's the Supreme Court would you tell me which members of the Supreme Court you believe are bought I was particularly concerned at that uh point when I uh posted that tweet I I understand but if you could i' I've got really limited time and I apologize for interrupting just tell me which members of the court you are B I did not think that Justice Clarence thas should be failing to disclose his trips on a billionair you airplane do you think he's I believe that there is grave risk do you think he's bought I said there is grave risk do you think he's bought to the confidence of the American people in our Supreme Court if you don't think he's bought why did you say it I said yes you said you said members of the Supreme Court are bought you're here testifying in as a expert for my Democratic friends and you're saying the members of the Supreme Court are bought I said when the American people feel that way when we have Supreme Court Justices on yachts and planes of billionaires and not being disclosed anybody besides Justice Thomas you think is bought on the Supreme Court I I believe that the court needs to CL anybody besides Justice Thomas I'm not going to go through each you tweeted it I tweeted the way the American people mean when you tweeted it and I stand by that tweet this supreme court of the United States needs to clean up its let me ask you a couple others here because you you've uh on September 17 2020 you you tweeted it looks like Putin's favorite Senator could lose referring to sen Senator Lindsey Graham could you tell me your evidence for saying that Senator Graham is President Putin's favorite Senator I don't recall that tweet and the story I've got it TW it's right here I'm happy to look at the tweet and I'm happy to write you explain that I don't know what that has to do with climate change well it has to do with your credibility did you say what is your basis for saying that Senator Graham is is President Putin's I mean of have you ever talked to President Putin I have not talked to President Putin and I would be happy to go look at the tweet and look at the story that I tweeted out and what Senator Graham had said in that context you know this is something I you say all this stuff for example in here you're here as an expert from my Democratic friends and you say all this stuff you you called on on September 16th 2023 a professor at University of Chicago very distinguished Professor Brian ligher you called him a racist can you explain to me why you think he's a racist I remember a series of tweets with him he's a Marxist who put out a number of statements attacking African-Americans and women and he also and he also was raising money for someone who had called the police on a black student for sleeping in the uh common room and now has a woke KK k.com website attacking me I will just say one thing that I learned in high school debate that when you have no argument you simply change the subject all right uh on October 15th of 2020 you said lindsy Graham is soliciting cash payments in return for voting on a supreme court nomination what evidence that's a pretty bold statement Professor what evidence do you you have for alleging that Senator Graham was taking cash in return for one of his votes I don't recall that specific tweet I do I do recall and I you think he was taking cash for one of his votes I have received campaign do you think he was taking cash for one of his votes I'm answering your question Senator I have received solicitations from both political parties of his votes it's a simple question I am received cash solicitations for cash on my email and yes from both political parties in connection with Supreme Court confirmation vote I'm I'm out of time but let me just say for the record it's wrong my aunt's Facebook page has more credibility than you do I could spend the rest of the day list uh uh reading your quotes where you make allegations against people and you can't defend them you've said nothing about climate change you quoted everybody from a Marxist to all sorts of other people this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the hearing Senator Senator Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman and thanks to all of our uh our Witnesses here today um Mr Robinson I I want to follow up about trying to understand your answer to one of Senator Cruz's questions and it this is really a question not a suggestion do I understand your position to be that there are two Sexes but there can be more than two genders um I wouldn't even say two and you know we've got Dr Lopez here as well but there's also the definition of interex I think that often these conversations were conflating sex and gender and I do want to affirm here that trans women are are women that is their gender okay but but I'm trying to understand do you make a distinction between sex and gender yes sir okay explain that just do you think they're more than two Sexes um I believe that there's a a definition for interex as well that I want to acknowledge um but sex is a sign I'm just trying to understand I'm thoroughly confused so you're you're born I'm talking about biology male female and what else I believe that interex is also acknowledged but again I'm not a doctor here what I can say and what does interex mean is that there's a difference between sex and gender and I think in these conversations we're conflating the two well but but I want to start with sex okay there's male there's female male when a baby's born before the baby has had time to to even have a sense of self there's male female and INX is a third SE I believe that is true but I would defer to Dr Lopez as I'm not a physician okay um and how many genders are there I think the gender is expansive and the definitions are always growing um you know today I can tell you I talk to young people talk about non-binary as more than five I think the gender is not a binary is what I'm trying to say are there more than five gender I'm just trying to understand are there more than five genders well I mean I think that there was a time where women wearing pants didn't feel like it was appropriate for their gender and yet I'm wearing pants today I think that there are ways that we express our are there more than five I wouldn't subject myself to naming how many genders there are but what I can say is that genders excuse me there there's an infinite number of genders I think depending on your culture there are a lot of different genders that that exist and I can also say that it's a term that's evolving if you look at young people today they really don't lean into the binary of only woman and man so I think that it's a component upon us not to legislate on this but create space for them to explore what their identities are what their gender identities are let's get back to Athletics I I think I understand what you're saying there three Sexes male female and interx I believe that to be true but again I'm not a phys and there are an infinite number of genders because gender is a mental state gender is about expression and I think that there are a variety of ways that you can express your gender okay so there's infinite number all right let's go back to the to the biology male female boy girl okay biologically do males have an advantage over females biologically in sports again I'm not a physician and I I can't speak to that what's your real world experience um it depends I mean there are some people who are born male that I'm faster than if I were to Sprint to catch them and some that I'm not some males that are taller than that a biological male has a physical advantage in sport over a biological female not as a definitive statement give me an example well no I I don't think h h h how many female members of the NBA do you see well I can say that you know there's been this news article about men that think that they could beat Serena Williams in tennis right that they think that they could actually score a point on her um and it's just not the case she is stronger than that what's your experience been male female both Serena and Venus lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player which they're phenoms for women um my experience my husband he swam at University of Kentucky as well in terms of accolades and in terms of national ranking I was a much better swimmer than him um he could kick my butt any day of the week without trying okay I I just think Miss Robinson I I'm tried to understand where you're coming from I think you lose a lot of credit ability when you don't concede that a a biological male ha has physical advantages over a biological female I I mean I just think that's a proven fact and you really hurt your credibility I understand you you want the world to be a better place I do too and I don't think people ought to be discriminated against be because of an immutable characteristic I don't um and I I think that um I think everybody ought to be free to be themselves and what you do in your bedroom or what I do in my bedroom with a consenting adult is nobody's business but if what I do in in a in my bedroom with a consenting adult if I decide I want to tell somebody's child about it then then people have rights too and I think parents have rights and I think biological females have rights to be able to compete fairly in sport in in in in in in sports so I I really I really think you hurt your credibility when you refuse to acknowledge that biological males have an advantage over biological females it kind of makes me wonder about all your testimony thank you Mr I'm sorry go ahead um I I what I'm trying to say is that there is not a definitive advantage in all cases sir I don't know if you believe that you could beat Serena Williams in tennis but I probably think that that's not the case there are not all cases where all men are physically Superior to all women and at the end of the day in this conversation we're not talking about that we're talking about trans women who are in fact women who deserve to play in a gender that matches their Sports who deserve all the benefit that Miss gains is talking about and as a cisgender black woman I can say definitively that my Womanhood is not threatened by a transgender person asserting hers as well Senator Herona thank you Mr chairman I thank all of the uh persons who are testifying today for Miss Robinson uh do you know what Kennedy of Louisiana is recognize for five minutes thank you Mr chairman thank you for being here Mr chairman and to your colleagues thanks to all of you for giving so much to our country as you know our fiscal year our meaning the federal government's fiscal year begins October one we're in the process of putting together a budget um if we pass a budget we meaning Congress passes a budget that increases spending by let's say 10% roughly $650 billion what will be the impact on inflation so if it's uh it depends on uh if of course if it were funded by tax increases or other spending cuts U I guess in your hypothetical it's not it's a so you know I think deficit spending at the margin stimulates the economy at the margin it's a big economy though and what will be the impact on inflation it would there would be it would probably a small effect on inflation ultimately but there would be an effect through stimulation of the economy uh between it would be more demand which would just in general I'm not commenting on being I'm sort of Comm comenting on fiscal policy here but nonetheless it would be there would be an effect on infl I'm just asking you about e basic economics um I I just read a piece by one of your economists from the San Francisco fed Mr Shapiro who who's arguing that uh labor costs have had virtually nothing to do with service inflation and a negligible um um is a negligible factor in broader inflation and I read this stuff from some of your people and I just wonder what planet they parachuted in from um if Congress passes a budget in my my prior example that reduces spending by 10% roughly $650 billion what what impact will that have on inflation so that would you know you'd have less stimulus for demand and you'd be cutting programs if you did that and and therefore you'd be slowing the economy down and the the impact would be less demand neither of these neither of these ideas affects the supply side at all so less demand would mean less economic activity less spend and that would have a negative effect on inflation well more stimulus by federal spending is inflationary is that right it has a so we've been in this situation where inflation was so stable for 25 years you remember and and almost nothing that we did mattered for inflation and it's called the the so-called flat Phillips Cur where there just wasn't a connection between how tight the economy is and inflation that that does not appear to be the case right now I think many would people would say that the Phillips curve is now not so flat and that there isn't there is an interaction between that's that's a yes that's I think that's a yes yeah it's a this is economics you know and less less spending by government is it it means less stimulus which tends to be disinflationary is that fair yes okay let me ask you about basil the basal three end game you know what I'm talking about I do um there's been some reporting and of course not everybody has to F not every country has to follow the basil recommendations we the European Union is not following U they're going their own way and we're we're kind of going Our Own Way in America using the basil directives as a as as a a guide post but it's been reported that fed's going to uh raise Capital requirements by as much as 20% or excuse me it's going to raise Capital requirements to 20% is that is that right no that's it's it would the idea would be to raise them by by 20% in other words if um 20% of whatever whatever current capital requirements are you would raise it by 20% of the total existing amount okay if JP Morgan's Capital right requirement right now is let's say 13% It would go to 15% right something like that if if we were to if that were to be what happens and and uh um this will be for banks hundred billion dollars or more no no I in there isn't a final proposal so uh and I know it's still in motion I know things are still changing yeah but you you you folks are talking you're going to have a lot of input no that's right that's right so um so but but I will say um sorry what was it your question was are you going to raise Capital requirements for 20% to Banks hundred billion dollar or more are you going to affect Community Banks as well smaller no the the the capital requirements will be very very skewed to the eight largest banks the gips there may be some Capital increases for the other Banks and there won't I don't I'm not I think none of this should affect Banks under 100 billion the really big Banks you're talking about are they the ones that are at risk right now they weren't they they were a source of strength in in a in a place of strength they're doing pretty well term well yeah we've gone from too big to fail to damn we're damn happy they're they're big I mean haven't we well I I would say that as I mentioned you know we spent a lot of time and a lot of effort raising the capital standards uh 10 years ago and more Rec recently and I supported all of that and was happy to do so and I think I think uh Senator Kennedy's time expired Senator Smith in Minnesota I yield back Mr chairman thank you Senator Kennedy as you always do Senator Kennedy thank you uh Mr chairman welcome Governor uh Professor Keenan you teach your T Lan yes sir I do I have that privilege and uh you have your own website Keenan climate.com is that sir I do okay and you describe yourself on your website as a globally recognized thought leader is that correct yes sir okay and um you give paid speeches do you on occasion I do you have your own agent I believe according to your website Lee Bureau this is correct and how much do you charge per speech it varies depending on the audience the amount of preparation work that goes and the amount of follow through uh us the last paid speech you gave how much did you receive uh I happy to follow up on you don't remember I I do not do you keep do you give that money to two lane I do not you keep it yes this is outside of my capacity as a professor right as his standard course you you recently sent a letter uh um you recently joined a lot of other academics you signed a letter demanding that Elite institutions and universities stop accepting money from fossil fuel companies is that correct this is correct you consider tane an unite University I would like to think that we have a high standard of Excellence in our education and our research okay well um the Murphy family of Murphy Oil and the Demming family of Murphy Oil have recently given tane $25 million you think uh have you called on Tane to give that money back well it's uh not they didn't give that money to my unit or the department or school that I work have you called on T Lane to give that money back or you think that's okay for them to keep it it's their prerogative not mine okay um do you could but but you think but yet you just signed a letter saying that all Elite universities should refuse fil fueld money is that did you put a footnote in there and say except my own well what I'd like to say senator is that I believe it raises a conflict of interest for those that research climate change than are supported by the fossil fuel industry but then why don't you ask T land to give the $25 million back well I think in the context if that money were to be used to support climate research information disinformation or whatever it may be then that may be an appropriate conflict of interest but I think in the context you don't see the hypocrisy here it is a hypocrisy and those that may read and interpret it as such I maybe it's like Washington if there weren't double standards there wouldn't be standards at all let me ask you this you you uh you also participated in another article here uh calling criticizing Houston for building new buildings and mcmanes and you said uh I'm going to read your quote I don't want to misquote you Professor that means we have to change our consumer preferences you could have a super efficient energy efficient mega mansion in Houston the suburbs but it's still a mansion you're still overc consuming space did you say that yes sir that's based on work as a member of the ipcc our research suggested that reducing our footprint in terms of total spatial footprint would have significant impacts the decarbonization of the built environment we and so you're saying you're saying that people should should live in smaller houses because larger houses contribute to CO2 emissions 100% Senator okay well recently tane finished the comments it was 77,000 Square ft $55 million recently tane finished the gold ring Walen bird B business complex $35 million to complete 92,000 Square ft boy that's a mcmansion uh muser Hall 23,000 Square ft Paul Hall 36,000 Square ft Richardson Hall 50,000 Square fet housing Redevelopment phase one 230,000 Square ft at two lane have you called upon two lane to stop these buildings sir the habitable space within those units are roughly the size of the conference room back there and indeed quite but they contribute to does that we the commons contribute more to climate change then a mansion in Houston you were pretty quick to criticize the people of Houston for wanting to build uh you thought mcmansions but you don't criticize your own University I don't find that to be equivocal comparison by between uh space meant for students who must reside at a university you see the seeing that it is your finding an interpretation sir but you don't see the irony or the hypocrisy I'm going to go ahead and say no okay I kind of gathered that would be your answer Governor good to see you you live in a big house don't you currently I do yes how big is the governor's mansion I don't know the square footage but it it's large and it's 60 years old this year you ought to come by and by well well the professor from tane doesn't like that uh let me ask you do you think it's fair look John Bell we get 375% of all short World royalties under go Mesa New Mexico gets 50% share from the federal government for God's sakes Wyoming gets 50% North Dakota gets 50 uh 50% we get 37.5% and we got a share it with four other states and it's captain 375 million that we get the share No Matter yeah yes and that just sucks I don't think it's fair and 90% of all Gulf oil and gas uh uh exploration production activities are served out of port fushan so we bear the brunt of the infrastructure necessary to make all of that happen uh but we're not sharing uh the way other states share and it's one of the reasons I think the members of this committee uh while while while you out for the ones who co-sponsor the rise act because it is incredibly important for a state like Louisiana and we constitutionally dedicate every dollar we get as you know uh to the coast all we're asking is to be treated like everybody else aren't we yes sir and we have a solution don't we we do and it's called rise act tell us about the rise act well it it's a it's a wonderful piece of legislation that that we are obviously hoping that you pass not only for the benefits of you just mentioned but currently there's no Revenue sharing mechanism in place in federal law with respect to wind uh will'll have the first offshore windley sale next uh next month and so this is a very real thing for us especially as we look at the loss of the BP Horizon uh uh U fines that that have been paying in fact the the midbar teria $2.9 billion paid for uh with BP dollars but those go away in 2031 we really need to replace that revenue and wind energy gives us an opportunity but we need that structure in place and I appreciate your work on that well it I'll I'll I'll to to be blunt um we've proven we can use the money well and we've put our own money up and it is patently unfair that other states get a larger share much larger share than Louisiana and I think think the rise act uh which will also help our wind industry as Senator White House knows we're working together on it um is is is long overdue and I appreciate you coming up here to to talk about that bill I was in judiciary that's why I was late um and the Chairman's been very generous with allowing me to go over thank you Mr chairman not a problem Senator Kennedy glad to have you here with your Governor present and I would note that uh your your colleague Senator Cassidy is also an extremely energetic and Lively proponent of the rise bill and we continue to work together governor with your delegation to try to make sure that we can get this bill passed through enr um with the support of your former gubernatorial colleague now Senator mansion and um we're continuing to make progress with that uh let me say that the questions for the record that need to be uh must be in by noon tomorrow and if the witnesses would be kind enough to respond to any questions for the record you may receive [Music] within can we agree that the U the FEMA administered National flood insurance program risk rating 2.0 is wly inadequate Mr heler yes M Morris ma'am yes um Jerry since I can't say your last name um I I would not say that it's a woefully inadequate okay um imperfect as it is does it make sense to you Mr heler to owed the national flood insurance program to expire no it doesn't short of getting a uh a better solution in there we need to have that back stop and we absolutely should keep that around until we can we're not likely to get that better solution in a few weeks are we no we're not but I'm glad that do you think it makes sense missar to allow to expire I do not think it makes sense for it to Aspire it needs to continue to be funded and reformed as needed all right Mr Jerry thank you for the question I I think it should be allowed to continue and not with a shortterm one two Monon kicking the can down the road I think there needs to be some more certainty about the availability of of insurance so I think a long-term reauthorization five years maybe 10 years is more in order right um miss miss miss Norris [Music] um I if the world became carbon neutral by 2050 do you believe that would solve a lot of the problems of the costs of flood insurance and property Casualty Insurance well Senator that's a pretty loaded question and I'm not a scientist um but I do think number one that that's a wonderful thing to think about I would love to know that we could get there well I'm I've thought about it and I'm hope hopefully you have too but I you don't want to answer my question Mr heler what do you think it's not going to solve the property insurance crisis that we have now it is part of the risk projection as was discussed earlier we're trying to make uh risk plans for years going into the future so we have to begin to solve that problem all right we in the meantime but you don't think it'll solve the problem it's not going to solve today's problem no we need better we need to take more uh all right how about you Mr Jerry I think it's a a solution to a different issue to one of of pollution and emissions and what are we going to do during the transition going from fossil fuels to Renewables okay if you were King for a Day Mr Jerry tell me what you would do to fix the problem of the cost of property and Care Casualty Insurance today I would shine a spotlight on the areas where there's disruption and dislocation and Librium it means to give me three specific things you would do just Top Line to fix the the cost problem today in English have the California legislature to repeal proposition 103 to have Florida continue its uh uh tort reforms where it has eliminated the abuses from that's two two and and the third one is to uh educate the public about how Insurance works I think that yeah they know how it works it's called write a check and and uh and then you have to sell blood plasma to go to the grocery store which you probably have to do anyway because of President Biden's inflation give me three three things you would do Mr D thank you no shiny objects Mr Jerry was talking about Mr thto we need one we need to be putting money into protecting homes making sure the levies are strong making sure the uh communi subies that's number one I would I would call it government alternative you want alternative spending emergency disasters number two is build a federal uh reinsurance program like Tria when when businesses in America when commercial sector was afraid they weren't going to be able to get terrorism insurance anymore because of 911 we've we came in and we've created a solution the government gets gets into the reinsurance business what's number three let's let's let's get all of the uh let's get the uh Regulators on the ball in the states keep move it down in the states get them on the ball to actually go through some of the data because when we look at the data coming in from these Insurance that's number three get The Regulators on the ball what's number four oh wow I get four thank you Senator um well I think I think number four is to address for the the needs of lower and modern income people by making sure that we are not creating an insurance Market that slices and dices and prices People based on their socioeconomic status with things like these credit penalizing good safe homeowners credit I give Miss Norris a chance Mr chairman then then your time expires and she answers I'm sorry Mr sh without comments Mr shered can I give um Mr shered said I can give you a chance to answer M if I give you just two first of all I'm going to affirm everything that was just mentioned number one is we need to invest in in ways of being able to get our communities and our buildings resilient okay government subsidies that's number one number two number two is to create this reinsurance program we've got to stabilize the market get the government in the reinsurance business yes and then thank you uh thank you Senator John uh time has expired thank you Mr chairman and thank you for uh calling this hearing um Mr D am I saying your name correctly sir that's correct yes Mr D if if I uh am a recipient of content created by generative AI do do you think I should have a right to know that that content was generated by a robot yes I think you do I think the details would depend on the context but in most cases I think you know okay I or anybody else if I receive something I'd like to know is this real or was this generated Mr Smith generally yes what I would say is if you're listing to an audio if you're watching a video if you're seeing an image and it was generated by AI I think people have a right to know the one area where I think there's a Nuance is if you're using AI to say help you write something maybe it's helping you write the first draft just as I don't think any of us would say that when our staff helps us write something we're obliged to give the speech and say now I'm going to read the paragraph that my staff wrote you make it your own and I think the written word is a little more uh complex so we need to think that through but as a broad principal I agree with that principle Professor there are situations where you probably wouldn't expect to be uh dealing with the product of generative Ai and in those instances well that's the problem right but as times change uh it's possible that our expectations change and so uh but as a as a as a principle do you think that people should have a right to know when they're being fed content from generative AI uh if there were if they well it's it's I tell my students it it depends on the context generally speaking If You're vulnerable to generative AI then the answer is absolutely yes what do you mean If You're vulnerable so there may be sit I'm just looking for sure sure no disrespect no not at all a straight answer absolutely I I kind of like I like two things breakfast food and straight an I love them and and if if if a robot is feeding me information and I don't know it's a robot am I entitled to know it's a robot as a consumer pretty straight up well uh I think the answer is yes uh it all right in a lot of start back with Mr D um am I entitled to know who owns that robot and where that content came from I know it came for a ro from a robot but somebody had to prod the robot to make it give me that content am I entitled as a consumer to know who owns the robot I think that's a harder question that depends on the particular context I think um you know if somebody is feeding me a video and it's been identified as being generated by AI I now know that it's that it's generated it's not real um you know if if it's you know being used for example in a political campaign then I would but let me stop youed let's suppose i' I'm looking at a video and it was generated by a robot would it make any difference to you whether that robot was owned by let's say President Biden or president Trump don't you want to know in evaluating the content who owns the robot and who who uh who prompted it to give you this information I would probably want to know that I don't know that I would feel it would be required for me to know that how about you Mr schmith I'm generally a believer in letting people know not only that it's generated by a computer but who owns the program that's doing it the only qualification I would offer and it's something you all should think about and would know better than me there are certain areas in political speech where one has to decide whether you want people to act with anonymity The Federalist Papers were first published under a suud and I think in the world today I'd rather have everybody know who's speaking you should think Professor I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you again Senator with a not straight answer but uh I agree how do you feel about breakfast food right I I Am pro breakfast food okay um so we agree on that I agree with Mr Smith I think that uh there are circumstances where you'd want to preserve Anonymous speech and there are some where you absolutely would want to know who who well I'm I'm I'm not I don't want to go too too over um obviously this is an important subject and and the extent to which I think let me rephrase that the extent of most Senators knowledge in terms of the the the nuances of AI their general impression is that AI has extraordinary potential to make our lives better if it doesn't make our lives worse first first and that's about the extent of in in my judgment we we're not nearly ready to be able to craft a bill that looks like somebody designed it on purpose I think we're more likely to take baby steps and I ask you those questions predictably because sen shots and I have a bill it's very simple it says if you own a robot that's going to spit out artificial content uh to Consumers consumers have the right to know that it was generated by a robot and who owns the robot and I think that's a good place to start but again I want to thank U I want to thank my colleagues here my chair and my ranking member they know a lot about this subject and I'm going to I want to hear their questions too thank you all for coming thank you Senator Kennedy on behalf of the chairman we're going to start um a second round thank you Mr chairman uh Mr hos you're with Johnson and Johnson is that right yes sir how is that stakeholder capitalism working out for you how is it working for Johnson Johnson it's one of the greatest honors of my life okay um I I I see where you Johnson and Johnson has joined with um a number of other good American companies JP Morgan um he's not a company Mr Colin C Colin Kaepernick on his issue of police brutality proor gamble Facebook Apple y'all pledge $50 billion doar to quote be a force for social change and fight Injustice $50 billion is a lot of money how is that commitment consistent with what you're asking us to do here today sir I'm not aware of the particular commitment you're referencing but I could say just that it's got to be right I could say just positively that the consistency is in the end to ensure that each and every act that the company takes is consistent with our creedo okay and our Credo puts the public and our patients first right let me ask the professor a few basic questions because I'm still learning about this issue Johnson and Johnson took it oh before I do I forgot to ask you one question how many how many tal cases have you tried to verdict there have been 42 cases that have gone to verdict of those we have prevailed in 32 okay so you've lost 10 yes okay and what were the total damages in the 10 that you lost the damages ranged dramatically give me a total I don't know the total I can give you appr proxy the highest one was in the billions okay all right Professor um I don't want to just pick on Johnson Johnson but they're the one here let me pick on Georgia Pacific okay I don't I don't want to pick on anybody I'm learning on this issue but let's call them Corporation a get sued in Mass with ma with respect to mass torts they spin off the liabilities to a shell Corporation and that shell Corporation files chapter 11 bankruptcy right sure is that legal under the bankruptcy code is that legal um the code does not restrict that necessarily courts have found that there are there are variety of bases to reject that sort of action so courts have been pretty active in this space I should probably White House what the consensus I mean some bankruptcy judges say this is a legitimate use of the bankruptcy code I presume other bankruptcy judges say no it's not and and it's dismissed is that a fair statement uh that is a fair statement I think that there a Nuance here if you don't mind I bit what's the national consensus on this I think the national consensus is that this is a proper action under state law but to the extent there is some sort of impropriety Bankruptcy Court judges are very well positioned to police that as we've seen in the LTL case so it's not that Senator White House point out that I was supporting Texas twep I'm not supporting Texas 2ep I'm merely providing that has the authority to say this is an abuse of the code exactly can address how many you have done that uh well the most prominent one is is LTL so in the third circuit now there's a very rigorous split among the circuits there is there is so the fourth circuit and we were talking about form shopping earlier that would encourage form shopping absolutely okay um is there a case before The Supreme Court to resolve this uh no I bet there's one coming I mean and what what are you what are you asking us to do today the prop let me start with Mr hos again what are you asking us to do today the ask from our perspective to Congress would be to make uniform that very issue you just identified whether what is the standard with respect to dismissing a case now there's a distinction between the propriety of a Texas twostep let's call that it's a divisional merger statute and the question of what is a standard that you apply when you dismiss a case our case was not dismissed because of anything to do with the Texas twep nobody challenged the Texas twep in our case in fact you just had a golden opportunity to answer my question uh let me ask you Mr Pur and you didn't do it um Professor tell me what you think we should do today um what you think Congress would do I think the there are very large issues here I think as I mentioned before 524 524 G needs to be amended to capture all mass Tor cases once that's done you can have uniformity in process and procedure with all these cases some involve asbesto some don't um the code can be revised to uh provide Clarity on whether thirdparty releases can be part of a plan I think that'd be very helpful and of course the feature claim is represented if that could be modified um have some more Integrity in that selection process those pieces together I think would really improve the process thank you thank you Mr chairman Senator Kennedy asked a good question we tried tried to follow through on it it dist toct just what were the verdicts or the settlements in these cases we some of it is hard to come by very quickly but uh there was one case in Missouri that was 4.69 Million for a group of 20 claimants reduced on appeal to two billion uh to give you a range here but the remember the offer from uh Johnson and Johnson through LTL was for 8.9 billion for 60,000 CL payments give put that in perspective next up I believe is uh Senator hono Professor when um when a consumer interacts with with AI generated content let's say as voiced by a robot do you think the consumer has the right to know uh that uh it's talking he he or she is talking to a robot that question is to me uh yes I do and I think that is really a a key area the new kinds of necessary disclosures where uh we can uh try to uh reduce the incidents of this kind of Pride that's a yes does anybody disagree with the professor you agree both of you I generally agree I would like to know personally okay I I I do also generally agree with that I do think it depends a little bit on your definition of AI and the particular function or use case we're we're discussing but generally when you're talking the financial services sector Professor do you um do do you U think the consumer should be able to know not only that the content is generated by AI but you think this consumer is entitled to know who owns the robot and therefore the generated content uh yes and I think that's part of a more you know General principle of uh knowing and any entity that you're interacting it with what interest are they representing okay when uh when a bank loans Money um it has a profit motive does it not yes sir um it wants to be paid back is that correct yes sir and if the bank is not paid back enough times the bank goes broke am I right that is correct okay do you think it is possible to generate through artificial intelligence an underwriting system that precisely determines who is unlikely to pay back loan uh I believe that uh the the that machine learning models with a lot of data and AI can significantly increase the accuracy by which such decisions could be made can it do that right now uh lending firms use models right now to predict the best they can uh subject to the kinds of factors they're allowed to consider uh to determine whether a loan will beid but I'm want to use as The Benchmark the current underwriting system the different approaches that various financial institutions take you think AI can improve on that in in terms of determining precisely who's likely to pay the loan back and who isn't it can improve on that in in part on the base on on the ways that it could potentially take into account much more uh information than is generally available to Sy okay let's suppose that system is developed and and all of you experts agree yes this this system is more precise in determining who is likely to pay the money back as opposed to someone else it's better than what we have now um by definition it's going to have a dis impact is it not I mean some people are going to get a loan and some aren't right that's right but I I think that we need to make a distinction between okay can I can I just finish this thought because I only have a minute um if we if we all agree on that system this is a really good system to predict who who can pay the money back and who it can't and We Know by definition it's going to have a desperate impact some people are going to get alone some people are not going to get alone do you think at that juncture government should step in or has the right to step in and say no we don't like the result yes because it didn't include enough people from this area or enough people um of this of this educational level I I think there are other interests besides accuracy that are legitimate to be considered in public interest if you could answer my question do you think government at that point should be able to step in and say no we do not like the results uh I think that in some circumstances if the reason for that decision is uh has systematic negative effects in our society that would be a legitimate interest but we all agreed didn't we that this system was the best system available it was the most accurate which I don't necessarily think is a the same thing as being the best so you don't you think what other factors do you think should be considered other than whether someone's going to pay back the loan uh Notions of fairness in uh so you think a loan should be made to someone who's less likely to pay back the loan as opposed to someone who's more likely to pay back the loan on the basis of fairness and government ought to make that decision uh I think if the processes by which the decisions are made are not fair those process should not beow you want quotas in other words right no that's not correct sounds to me like it's correct I don't know Mr chairman can I let this gentleman I I would just add that under the law A lender has to look for a less discriminatory alternative when they use a model um but I think the promise of AI here is that FICO and other kind of leg Legacy scoring systems are known to like very heavily correlate with prot ed class characteristics AI done right this would improve on FICO and if we all agree that it's an improvement on FICO and it still has a result that government doesn't like should government have the right to step in and say yeah it's a better system but we don't like the results no I think if it's more fair and more accurate that's an absolute win for society um and I think even under existing tests that we have in the law AI can be a big Improvement on the status quo has expired uh M qu I'd like to start with you for some time a number of us have rised concerns about how big corporations are using people's Senator Kennedy thank you Mr chairman um it's clear to me from listening today that we still have a a lot of work left to do I I want to start with trying to look at this issue from 30,000 ft um for many years now College athlete Co College athletics has uh generated enormous revenues I'm not saying that's a bad thing that's a good thing um the Supreme Court comes along in what the Austin case is that right in 20 20 21 and changes where that money's going before that money was going to uh to uh TV stations and universities and coaches and and uh and others I guess construction companies that were building the new stadiums and then after the Supreme Court decides the Austin case in 2021 the kids start getting paid and all hell breaks loose I mean is that's is that what is going on here the fact that the money is being redistributed and that's going to cause the world to spin off its axis because the kids are getting a share of the dough Governor what I would say um Senator response to the Austin decision is there is flexibility for schools that can afford to make Austin payments to do so and they can make awesome payments in particular Sports um as long as they manage to satisfy the title n requirements and and they can choose what level they want to support and they can also choose to play or not but you're you're getting down into the weeds and I'm not saying that's a bad thing we're going to have to get in the weeds but that's what this before the Austin case everything was just fine and then the Austin case is handed down and the kids start getting some of the money not the adults the adults have got a share and all of a sudden the world's on fire what am I missing here for the record I support the Austin stuff I also support ni I just would like to see a little more transparency and support for information to make it easier for student athletes to succeed in this space well let me let me make this suggestion to you and I want to hear from the rest of the panel um I would strongly encourage you and your colleagues to try to get together and come up with a new system for us to consider that looks like somebody designed it on purpose uh you may regret asking Congress to intervene here um all of a sudden you're going to be micromanaged now I'm not saying we shouldn't and my colleagues have raised excellent points and it sounds to me like we do have a bit of a of a I don't know Wild Wild West as chairman Blumenthal described it um but I'd be real careful before you invite Congress in to start man micromanaging your business let me go back to the original question um any of you what am I missing about this isn't this fight over the fact that the kids are now getting some of the money that the adults were getting before yes sir absolutely absolutely um the the Injustice that has been inflicted on College athletes um seemed to be fine for the industry until uh we won some Court rulings and state legislature started passing laws essentially the industry the industry had a monopoly on College athletes inil value they owned every penny Nike wants to slap a logo on a kid got to pay the school kid can't get a penny that's what this is about they even many of the schools even said hey if if that happens we're going to lose money well that means you've been stealing money from these kids if it's against like the Supreme Court if if it violates antitrust law that's the problem you know these the opposition even employment stats all this is about we don't want to pay them fairly you know nil just so you know this is not Equitable economic situation here that's like saying go get another job because we're not going to pay you for what you do here you know we're in to cap you have a national price fix for a scholarship no matter and and a lot of these schools I don't know if that's me or not that's NFL man is it so and we can't treat every every division as if it's the same FBS schools masquerading as D3 schools saying there are no employees here you know and Notre Dame I know they um I would imagine they have students in the bookstore as employees it doesn't seem to harm their Educational Opportunity there's no Congressional hearings about that we're talking about equal rights and this industry is operating in illegal fashion it's it's breaking antitrust law breaking labor laws and now it's the it's coming home and players are getting you know Avenues and levers and pulling kind of pulling leverage and and here we are saying the sky's going to fall but I agree with you I I don't mean to go over so much Mr chairman we are talking about rights here but we're also talking about money and it just seems to me that this controversy in part has been caused by a a a model of redistribution for that money and I've got a lot of Sympathy for the kids I have to tell you the adults seem to to to be able to take care of themselves but it's the kids that make all this possible thank you Mr chairman thanks thank you Mr chairman and thanks to all the members of our panel for being here today uh Dr Kelly you are head of environmental analytics is that right at what's the name of your company resilience res okay you're a PhD that's correct where' you do your work at the University of Cambridge okay if you were if you were King for a Day doctor and you and you were not fettered or constrained by any uh political considerations can you just list for me I don't think we'll have time for you to explain each one at length but list for me the five things you would do king um to make uh America carbon neutral by 2050 thank you senator for that question uh the first and most important thing is to decarbonize the energy sector so uh remove fossil fuels from the economy as fast as possible and transition to renewable energy then require uh businesses to disclose their financial risks so that the community can understand um investors and shareholders can understand what those risks are and make better investment decisions I would then um work with the International Community to make sure that the grid around the world is decarbonized I would also work on agriculture uh move to Agriculture and other sectors to make sure that we can uh well that's not very specific let me try it again give me the five things you're King now but for one day five new rules in the United States of America so we'll be carbon free by 2050 I would put in a rule to make sure I got you'd get rid of oil and gas that's the first one I that was the most specific require companies to disclose climate related risks okay that's two I would invest in new technologies to decarbonized Industrial processes to Li to reduce emissions okay and what's for work with International communities to work work with the community okay is there another one um and to to work with political leaders across work with political leaders yeah you sound like a consulted um all right let's take the the the get rid of oil and gas and what would you replace it with renewable energy what kinds uh wind and solar presently the the most cost effective nuclear um I'm personally not in favor of nuclear you don't like nuclear okay how much will it cost to to uh U and over what period of time do we have to get rid of all oil and gas and go to wind and Sol so the good thing about wind and solar is that it's now more cost effective than producing new over what period of time would we have to make this transition well we need to do it before 2050 to get to the us if we do it 2050 we'll be I'm trying to understand what it should I give up Dr Rose can you give me if you were King for a Day um the three things you would do I would uh we'll start on something that that uh might uh you might find more attractive I'd invest I'm not interested in a but I've been so many of these hearings where people come and and and talk about catastrophe and you say okay what do we do about it and you get nothing but nonsense so if you could give me this is your chance just three specific things King right that you would do so I would uh invest in carbon capture and storage uh I don't think we need to get rid of all fossil fuels immediately that's one number two number two I would pass a renewable portfolio standard uh for the US which uh calls for a shift to Renewables and electricity generation so I recently completed a study where the don't have time what's number three uh I would uh pass a cap and trade bill in the US to find the least cost ways of dealing with climate change tell me how that would work uh you essentially place a cap on emissions you give permits or allowances to entities and you allow them to trade that trading shifts the cost burden to the lowest cost entities we found that that can save 70% of the potential costs of dealing with climate change as opposed to passing across the board you put a tax on carbon well it's it's different than a tax because you can freely Grant these allowances and uh then it's trading so it's it's not not a tax it's different than a tax how much do you think all this will cost your best guess I don't have a dollar figure but the figure is a lot lower than what I've heard on this side of the aisle today well you think we ought to just do it and then worry about the cost no I I think uh we should do studies what's your I mean you you advise the UN and you're at USC and that's pretty good school right what's what's uh your best guess about what it'll cost us to decarbonize by 2050 well one thing I'd like to mention the gentleman Brown uh that it's not the government paying this cost a first I would say it might cost us 2% of GDP me per year so so that's um in terms of the us to start and that's a couple of hundred billion dollars couple hundred billion billion dollars to start and then it'll level off is that and eventually eventually I think I think I can't get straight answers okay y'all want to talk about the problem but you never want to answer the question no I've been answering it well no you haven't I'm just asking for a figure does anybody have a figure that it would cost to decarbonize by 2050 that's all I'm asking does anybody have one so my answer is you start out with 200 billion and you get down to a cost savings by 2040 what would be the total cost by 2050 you think at most a couple of hundred billion by 2050 over 25 years so you think we can do we can totally decarbonize America about a couple hundred billion well I didn't say totally decarbonized because remember I said carb car neutral you're right you're right carbon neutral right does anybody disagree with that I person that is probably I um is that a yearly figure I'm assuming no no that's total toal 200 billion for the for the for total with some what is your figure Professor I'm I'm not prepared to give a figure you don't know you just want us to do it and pay for it later do you have a figure ma'am no sir this is really out of my area of expertise either you gentleman uh Senator I don't have a figure and I wouldn't want to do the task you assigned me but if you did and I had to do that I would uh take the green New Deal and implement it I would put the UN economy on how much would it cost uh in it'll cost our country our our our our liberties our economy we'll have to nationalize how much will it cost our country okay do you have an idea uh I have seen estimates that are much a much higher percentage of GDP than uh Dr Rose has indicated I mean it's frustrating folks I don't mean to be rude but you I've been I can't tell you how many these hearings I've been through and you say well the world is coming to an end okay all right how much will it cost uh uh we don't know the point is Senator that the cost of doing we're not sure um we need to get back to you no no fair-minded policy maker is going to embark on something that might cost a minimum of 200 billion based on what I've read that's low I don't know why you won't just answer straight it's a difficult question to answer because of course it's difficult that's what you're here for technology advances at different rates and so if you want us to just go start and then worry about the cost later come on Professor this is in Cambridge these are taxpayers we need to make hard decisions now to transition well then how much will they cost we need to inv you don't even know I'm done thank you Senator Kennedy Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is recognized thank you Mr chairman Dr levit um Hamas runs Gaza is that correct yes sir and lots lots of people help Hamas don't they there are people who help there are lots of people in Gaza who oppose Hamas as well well cutter sends uh Hamas uh $10 million a month to run the place does it not it has um the Palestinian Authority which the people of Gaza rejected in favor of Hamas uh pays gaza's electricity bill they keep the lights on for for Hamas don't they well to be clear the people of Gaza didn't reject the Palestinian Authority Hamas took over with Force of Arms I don't want to debate that yeah there's not much to debate yes the Palestinian Authority does provide salaries to its people in Gaza does the Palestinian Authority pay for the keep keeping the lights on in uh in Gaza they pay for some of it yes um the UN sends uh sends Hamas money to uh educate the children does it not un pays for some education uh in Gaza they do that through their own agencies is that a yes they provide the money into Gaza yes I'll take that as a yes um the UN gives Hamas money to run hospitals does it not you one runs hospitals in Gaza too yes and in fact doesn't homas tax uh at the rate of 16 and a half% every bit of food and Aid that comes in to uh to Gaza they do tax everything I don't know the exactas chart Lev a a a tax on even fish C does it not they tax everything and Hamas also levels an income tax does it not that too okay um President Biden's Administration has not enforced the sanctions on Iranian or on u u um uh on Iranian oil has it no okay so you agree with Miss I'm sorry I can't see you Leta leka so you agree I tend to make it a policy to try to agree with Miss plco whenever possible yeah um well you're smart you you told us you were smart um President Biden has not chosen to impose the uh the Snapback sanctions under the jpca has he correct okay um Miss plka who has the $6 billion it's in a bank in katar okay so cutter has control of it in essence that is correct although well let me put it this way if the if the cutter bank there's a cutter bank if the cutter tells them to do something the United States tells them not to do something who's the bank going to listen to well that's the that is the question before us right now the bank going to listen to K government okay and isn't it a fact that back in 2021 sure yelling through uh special drawing rights at the international monetary fund gave U ron4 and5 billion dollar that's what I understand yes and she'd like to give them more that's what I understand yes that's like cash money it's really a dividend you can cash in for US dollars is that right that's what I understand wow it seems to me that we could we we could cut off hus or at least to go go a long way toward doing that by actually just enforcing the things that we already say we're enforcing every Authority that is necessary to cut off Iran Hamas and every other terrorist group is already in the president's hands the question is never whether the president can it's whether the president will well why has the Biden Administration been so soft on Iran if we know Iran is funding asbah Hamas the houthis the the uh the the their surrogates in Syria the Surat in Iraq why has President Biden's Administration been so soft on well they just do they just think love is the answer and and that that that this is in a bar fight and that I mean just looks to me like this Administration is quoting Socrates in the middle of a prison riot that's a very apt picture I'm not a I'm I'm not a spokesman for the Biden Administration so I can only give you my estimation there has always been a problem in our compartmentalization in dealing with Iran we have prioritized their nuclear program their nuclear weapons program understandably but we have not ignored but diminished the importance of their support for terrorism their Regional disruptions and their human rights record those things need to change we need to tighten the screws on Iran in every single aspect peace through weakness never works does it no thanks Senator Kennedy Dr Rose can you give me if you were King for a Day um the three things you would do I would uh we'll start on something that that uh might uh you might find more attractive i' invest I'm not interested in a but I've been so many of these hearings where people come and and and talk about catastrophe and you say okay what do we do about it and you get nothing but nonsense so if you could give me this is your chance just three specific things King all right that you would do so I would uh invest in carbon capture and storage uh I don't think we need to get rid of all fossil fuels immediately that's one number two number two I would pass a renewable portfolio standard uh for the US which uh calls for a shift to Renewables and electricity generation so I recently completed a study where the don't have time what's number three uh I would uh pass a cap and trade bill in the US to find the least cost ways of dealing with climate change tell me how that would work uh you essentially place a cap on emissions you give permits or allowances to entities and you allow them to trade that trading shifts the cost burden to the lowest cost entities we found that that can save 70% of the potential costs of dealing with climate change as opposed to passing across the board you put a tax on on carbon well it's it's different than a tax because you can freely Grant these allowances and uh then it's trading so it's it's not not a tax it's different than a tax how much do you think all this will cost your best guess I don't have a dollar figure but the figure is a lot lower than what I've heard on this side of the aisle today well you think we ought to just do it and then worry about the cost no I I think uh we do studies what's your I mean you you advise the UN and you're at USC and that's a pretty good school right what's what's uh your best guess about what it'll cost us to decarbonize by 2050 well one thing I'd like to mention the gentleman Brown uh that it's not the government paying this cost aest first I would say it might might cost us 2% of GDP me per year so so that's um in terms of the us to start and that's a couple of hundred billion dollars couple hundred billion billion dollars to start and then it'll level off and eventually eventually I think I think I can't get straight answers okay y'all want to talk about the problem but you never want to answer the question no I've been answering it well no you haven't I'm just asking for a figure does anybody have a figure that would cost to decarbonize by 2050 that's all I'm asking does anybody have one so my answer is you start out with 200 billion and you get down to a cost savings by 20 240 what would be the total cost by 2050 you think at most a couple of hundred billion dollars by 2050 over 25 years so you think we can do we can totally decarbonize America by a couple hundred billion well I didn't say totally decarbonized because remember I said car you're right you're right carbon neut right does anybody Senor Kennedy uh Mr bear social media can make people less lonely can it not it can do that um social media can deliver Insight can it not it can um social media when used properly can give voice to the timid can it not it can social media can also spread hate Can it can uh and isn't it a fact that much of social media not all but much of social media has become a a Cess pool of snark what I can speak to Senator is it it happens all so often and it doesn't need to be that way yeah but is it that way for much of not all but much of social media the the one of the numbers that I talk about is this 20% of kids who witnessed bullying in the last seven days and this is content that does not get taken down if people comment on it it gets promoted yeah well let me put it another way I'm trying to sum this up for us isn't it a fact that social media has lowered the cost of being an a-hole yes and isn't it uh true that social media remove removes uh any geographical border to theill harassment of others yes and isn't it true that um some forms of social media optimize for engagement yes I think using your term they reward being an a-hole yeah and isn't it true that some uh forms of social media use surveillance to identify our and our kids hot buttons I cannot speak to that isn't it true that some form of social media use algorithms um to to show us and our our our kids stuff that pushes those hot buttons I will say this recently my daughter um had somebody go into one of her posts about cars and said you know you're you like to drive and you like cars because you saw a man doing it and she said I'm studying automotive restoration I've been doing this for years I know a lot about cars I am more than qualified and the person shot back no we may just belong in the passenger seat and to every point that you just made I will say that when I asked her about that post if she would delete it because she knows reporting would do nothing she said I will not delete it because I'm worried that that will mean that less people will see my posts all right U I'm not going to ask you this question I'm I'm going to make the statement because you're probably not familiar with Louisiana but in in my state social media has impacted uh the news media um particularly print media thank God for our our TV news and our radio news but when it comes to our print media um we're we in Louisiana and that's print media and paper paper and print media which is on the internet uh when it comes to print media um we we in Louisiana our News desert um we've only got about two uh real um non news print media journalist left who are fair in our opinion journals uh most of our our print media members are now Sports sportsjournalists which is fine I love sports but there's a lot else going on in the world let me let me wrap up this way what you do is what you believe isn't it it is and everything else is just cottage cheese isn't it it is yeah um I look forward to the day when members of the United States Senate will come together and establish a new rule not used every day or every week or every month or even every year but that rule would say when there is a consensus and when when you as a senator can demonstrate that you have 60 votes to pass a bill that you have the right to bring that bill to the floor of the United States Senate no matter who doesn't want it thank you Mr chairman thanks Senator k
