economics writer with the washington examiner. what was the purpose of the 2010 wall and led by the financial service committee chair just jeb hensarling want to repeal or make major changes? >> it was passed in 2010 by president obama and congressional democrats as a response to the 2008 crisis. the idea was to create new rules and get regulators more power to prevent that kind of crisis from happening again. those were the key provisions of the law new restrictions on things that could and couldn't

do and the access that they had to hold and the creation of the new powers including the consumer financial protection bureau to the police markets and to prevent abusive or unfair or fraudulent loans and products from being offered. >> the bill is called hr ten the financial choice act so it's a high priority for the speaker and republicans. here's the headline in the washington examiner gop dodd frank replacement bill heads to the house floor in particular on the consumer financial protection bureau created under dodd frank what would the gop bill due? >> it would cut back a lot of the rules. the argument is that the pendulum swung too far after the crisis and that there are so many rules now they are cutting into lending and that means less economic growth so the idea is to lessen the burden to get

things funding again and that will create economic growth and how you prevent the crisis, the argument is to eliminate what they thought created about the sources of investment that led to the crisis and increased market discipline so the centerpiece of the plan and the senate is called threason it ise act this would give the option if they hold more e capital and maintain a higher capital level they could add more regulatory rules meaning substituting investor oversight, people with skin in the game for regulators. >> republicans are not proposing gutting of completely they just want to rein it in. they would take away a lot of the authority of transitioning from being independent agency to write new rules and regulate new

markets to one that would just force consumer protection laws on the books up from the perspective democrats are cutting its powers back quite a bit and you mentioned the success that it's had. i'm not sure the latest number but it's around $12 billion that the bureau has returned and said it was created in 2010 will be opened doors. republicans think that for each of those products they have been found faulty or each of the time they got money back there are people that haven't received loans because they have not cut off the credits so their argument is they will be better served without it being as powerful and far-reaching as it is.

>> what did the congressional budget office find the cost estimates were on the replacement bill? >> they found it would save quite a bit, but the logic behind that number is pretty complicated and suggests it isn't straightforward savings. the reason it would've saved that money as it would lower the chances that the government had to pay to bail out a bank. the new mechanism to allow the government to takeover a bank and make sure it does not cause a panic and pay its creditors orderly. the way it works is if the bank is failing the government makes thinksa big investment upfront e it could be up to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars to carry out the bailout and

those made during the budget window. it would be repaid later on but the years in which it was being repaid would fall outside of the years they look at so you would end up with a big bailout. if you received a big number of spending for the bailout but if you take that power away then you save money so it is kind of a budget timing issue if that makes sense. >> what about the democrats calling this measure the wrong choice act. what in particular did not like about it? >> they don't like anything about it so this with power back the rules of the cfp b. which they are big proponents of. it would eliminate the poker rule that eliminates things like trading and speculating with money from consumer accounts that are protected by deposit insurance. it would dramatically increase

the burden any regulator would have to get over it to impose a new regulation and in general it would mean less government rulemaking and more of the markets that are free to operate without government oversight and that is contrary to the democratic view. >> on the other side, use a heritage actions in thi action y voting on the financial choice act and praising the courageous leadership the white house is behind th the bill. are there any political implications voting for this bill? >> they are limited in one sense that the bill is not expected to be picked up by the senate. this isn't a bill that can get around a filibuster or go through the reconciliation that would allow it to pass with 51 votes only so in that sense of how far this will go is limited and republican leaders have acknowledged that. this is a way for conservatives

to express what they think the alternative would be and it's a chance to demonstrate that they can get bills across the house floor and give momentum to the other items they have. >> economics writer with the washington examiner. read more at washington examiner.com and his reporting at joseph voelle. >> transportation secretary elaine chao and the president's proposal to privatize the air traffic control system. other topics include airline customer service, drone technology and the implementation of the next generation air transportation system. the senate commerce science and transportation committee is two hours. [inaudible conversations]