get an update on debt ceiling negotiations and talk about the so-called gang of six debt reduction plan. later, david krf clarke on the t regulations signed a year ago. u.s. today reports federal workers roseanne average of 105%. smaller than the years past. the total payroll for the government stands at $159 billion. total federal work force $2, 234, 100.

>> the president yesterday said, he was open on a short-term deal. 12 days to go until we hit the deadline. we wanted to get your thoughts about your confidence in leaders to come up with a debt deal. here's how you can weight in this morning. for democrats 202-624-111. republicans 202-624-1115. independents. 202-624-0760. reach out to us through email or twitter. twitt twitter.com c-span wj is how you can reach us.

one of the headlines this morning. the deficit cutting plan too much too late. talks between various members. the government reporter from bloo bloomberg news. is that what they are thinking on capitol hill today? >> yes. the gang of six came out with their proposal. it's fairly sweeping. i think there's a sense more among -- there's a sense among some lawmakers that they are trying to sign on to this. there was a letter that 33 senators had signed on to. the president seemed to give it some embracement earlier this

week. there is a sense that this is something. they'll sigh this is something the scope of which could not be done in the next few weeks. what are the options as far as available to members now to come up with some type of plan by august 2. >> what is being discussed is whether there is a possibility of incorporating the gang of six proposal into a more short-term deal. that is something that can be discussed now between the majority leader and what reid said on tuesday. he had asked mark warner to get back to him with suggestions of some el metropolitans of the proposal that might be able to be incorporated into a debt

limit increase or at least set up even if it wasn't implemented right away or some of those elements. >> as far as the house is concerned, what kind of meetings have taken place overnight or in the last 24 hours and the advance of some type of deal being forged. the house speaker and majority leader met with the president. not a sense of a lot of movement that came out of those meetings. there was an announcement that the house is probably not going to be in session over the weekend. the senate looks to be keying up for a vote saturday morning.

unless there's an agreement to move up the vote, it looked like they were keying up a procedural vote to limit debate on the cap and balance bill, which is the bill that passed out of the house earlier this week that would condition any debt limit increase on the balance budget amendment >> the vote on the house side, is it serving to be something that ties the hand of house republicans when it comes up with a deal to serve both those needs. >> definitely. it's something that would be done on arrival. i don't think it is an expectation. one thing interesting to watch is what level support it gets from the senate. of course, if there is any democratic support.

there was a lot of pressure over in the house to pass something and get the chance to go on record with something that includes a balanced budget amendment and speaker cuts. that is something more and more before there is any kind of a big deal. what's the move then if no meetings are planned today or no action over the weekend. you have the ability to come up with some type of proposal. what is the mood on capitol hill? >> it has ramped up over the last couple of days. there is a sense that this is a critical moment. there needs to be some kind of a deal that comes forth. as august 2 comes near,

certainly tension seems to be rising. in the papers, proposes a tax cut or tax increase especially with some of the ways the gang of six proposal lays out the revenue raising. >> there's a sense that initially, when the gang of six came out, the budget chairman talked a lot about how it would be scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut. there's some sense that even within their own proposal, the gang of six may use a different yardstick to measure things. >> why so long? why not especially when it seems incapable of doing something when it puts it into

legislation? in some ways, they've had a new momentum be the idea of a bigger deal possibly still being on the table. we saw a couple weeks ago speaker bainer walking away from the bigger deal. they said all along the grand bargain and something in the range of $4 trillion. the gang of six coming out with this has sort of changed the focus. and a much smallerscale deal of democrats talking about the discussion of the possibility of a by partisan agreement. >> it is reported that he's

meeting with a trezy today. what is happening at both the house and senate? >> today, senator reid said he would bring up basically the cap and balance bill which was sent over from the house, even though it is not expected to advance in the senate. he would bring it up and file a motion on it. that could launch a debate on this in the senate which could go on through saturday when there would be a vote. in terms of action on the floor, there's not expected to be a whole lot of action. the action is really behind the scenes where principals are talking and negotiating. >> any sense of what could happen next week? >> as we get closer, there's a possibility in the senate.

there's the mcdoconnelmcconnell proposal to un laterally raise the debt ceiling. that has been raised as a vehicle for any kind of agreement that doesn't merge there is talk of bringing that up next week with changes and sending it over to the house, letting the house make changes and sending it back. that's still up in the air. we'll have to wait and see. >> kathleen hunter with bloomberg news. we wanted to get your read on confidence in the white house coming up with a plan on debt.

202-624-1111 for democrats. 202624-1115 for republicans 202-624-0760 for independents. can you email us or twitter at c-span wj. caller, you are up first. go ahead. caller: hello. thank you. i want to thank c-span for letting a little guy like me from virginia to talk on your forum. the first thing i wanted to say was the house is about ideology. the senate is about big business. big business bottom line is about making money. republicans are making their money by lower taxes. they make profit by tax breaks.

they would not need to hire more people to raise revenue. that's the plan. it will turn us all into slaves to big business. thank you, pedro. host: caller. go ahead. caller: i'm josh from new jersey. host: go ahead. caller: my family all things obama is so wrong about the limit we are discussing. he needs to address the problems of the nation in that we are all, all, all, all -- we are all trying to payoff a debt that he cannot deal with.

host: as far as your confidence level, do you think he'll be able to do that by august 2? caller: we, republicans, are trying to deal with it. he's not trying to address it in a way that's actually going to pay it off in any sort of time that's going to be dealt with in terms we are doing next couple years, next eight years gone. so, no, no, no. i've got a lot to say. i wish the republican's fear about that. host: again, reach us on various lines on your screen and email and twitter too. too much too late? saying mr. obama has kept his sights on raising the debt limit

before borrowed money runs out in less than two weeks. host: virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. after listening to the debates

back and forth, it seems like we are worlds apart in reaching any type of agreement. for the average american, it's hard to understand the fall out of the raise of the debt. a lot of this thing with who has the best perspective and best idea of what is best for america, it just seems like what stands up the most and is dispointing the moment, it's gotten to be so personal and bitter. everybody is lashing out at each other now more than anything, regardless of what this big decision would be. >> do you have a good grasp of how they work? do you think the average american does as well? >> as far as the debt, that's something that's not a real good thing of what we can afford.

going into default, a lot as far as the final markets. various things in wall street and the markets. hard to say personally. when it comes down to me as an individual. more than anything, i would like to see more respectful dialogue. that's all. desoet oh, missouri on the democrat line. caller: there's so much i'd like to say. didn't we save china's butt? why should we owe them anything? did they ever pay us back?

i don't think we owe them a penny in my opinion. host: washington, you are next on the republican line. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. it's a pleasure listening to you. i think everyone is making a big deal out of the debt ceiling. history has shown many previous nations and empires have come across similar situations. they have come out of it ok. the roman empire under seeser babbalu johnson 4. they came out fine. even the president's were able to print more money and get themselves out of a bad situation.

and with the most temporary situation to find resolution is simply just to dig the large vast gold reserves. gold bonds, gold diamonds, gold -- host: the agreement assembled is really more of a talking point. the tax sections are slipry. their size depends on whether they are allowed to expire.

host: denver, colorado. caller: i'm a disabled american. my concern is if something is not done and the payroll checks for social security don't go out. i'm going to lose my home. i'm totally dependent on social security. it's my only source of income. that's why this whole situation seems so frightening to me. host: how are the leaders and

various members of congress performing in your opinion? as far as making a deal happen? caller: to me, it seems like they are pretty far off on coming to some type of agreem t agreement. with each day, it gets more anxiety riding knowing that is one more day we don't have any type of agreement. >> we have this coming in from brian. this is the long-term debt deal. while we are talking here and people are emailing, you can contribute your thoughts off our facebook page at c-span on facebook. on the topic we have this

morning about your confidence. facebo facebook.com/c-span. caller: why are these congressmen just ignoring me. i have been accepting them letters and emails. they haven't been listening to me. host: what are you sending to them? caller: i have given them every month of my life the last 16 years. what have they done for me? nothing. host: email this morning from washington. mixed confidence in a long-term debt deal. i think such a deal is possible in theory but i doubt the leadership is intell gept enough

to maintain a civilization this complex given how abstract most of the issues are. host: going to the phone. caller: members of congress and the president, this is about priorities and choices. what are their priorities? clearly, if they are putting a program like social security on the table and talking about any cuts and programs that did not contribute one penny. why is it on the table? that's where the money is. congress has borrowed that money and put that money we are holding treasury securities in a trust fund all these years. money owed that we paid in out of our paycheck. they owe it. what they want to do is get

themselves out that obligation. they are not performing the program. this is a different program. >> from this section of the "new york times," house ethics agreed to take an unusual step to hire an outside council before moving ahe ahead. the former prosecutor that works for a washington law firm was named as a special council. asked to first determine if ethics committee established during the investigation of ms. waters by passing negotiations and making statement that's showed a buy as against ms. waters. allegations are made as the committee has said. they have not taken these allegations lightly. ms. waters was charged last

august with violationses of rul rules. sought federal bills. pennsylvania on the line. go ahead. caller: my question is, democrats have had years to come up with a budget. they haven't done so. obama could have raised the taxes a while ago. he didn't do it. if that's what is going on, what confidence should i have that they have any type of plan. none whatsoever to try to take care of this problem. where is their plan? host: orlando, florida.

you are next. excellent show. my confidence is in two entities. one is the divine entity that initiated this and the framers of our constitution. it was designed where the poor -- the rich could run off and leave the poor, orphans and the widows and it was designed that the capital is tick sense, it was designed that those that have much, have much to give. when much is given, much is required. until we understand that -- my confidence is in the system. that's the framework. that was the intent. we can't make the changes that divine power will not allow us

until we bring it together back to revelation, take care of this nation as a whole. host: what about the day-to-day discussions going on on capitol hill? caller: that's design. that's how our framers are putting a good healthy debate among us and among those we put in office to make those decisions. a healthy debate is good? host: what about your confidence level in a deal being reached? caller: it will be reached when we adhere to the framework set by a higher power. host: do you think that will be reached by august 2? caller: my confidence is not in the congress and executive committees. that confidence level is in god. he promised to take care of us.

host: jamie on the line from maryland. caller: what i think it will take to change things is the american people to come together to demand change. the two parties are locked. there needs to be a mediator. i think on all sides, there's certain things i can agree with. there does need to be tort reform. i think all the way around, we need to address fraud and abuse. i don't mind helping out people that really need it for short term. some people make the situations worse. american taxpayer continues to face that. everyone here is immigrants, no doubt. you have to go by and live by

the law. the law of the land. like the lady diane said earlier. it companies to priorities. certain programs shouldn't be touched. they have nothing to do with the debt and shouldn't be touched at all. host: this is from the miami herald.

>> from 2009-2011, the deficits. the president's budget of fiscal year 2012. 800 plus days senate democrats have not passed the budget. >> the gentleman from florida that represents thousands of medicare beneficialries as do i is supportive of the plan that would increase cost. unbelievable from a member from south florida. >> putting out the email sent this tuesday on july 19. this says, look, debbie i know

after i departed the house floor, you directed your speech toward me.

host: going to the phone. go ahead. caller: yes. this is about president obama -- [inaudible] why can't they get together and get this -- balance this budget and raise the debt

ceiling because it has to get done. >> on the democrat line. good morning. i've been watching the cut, cap and balance vote. i don't think they've been very clear on what they are going to cut. that is under a private sector. this is all i have to live on. they should give us a fair warning before august 2 if we are gooding to be able to receive our checks or not. thank you. >> north carolina, go ahead. according to what i've heard about social security, that is all up to obama. they can choose to send those

checks out. if he doesn't, that's because they called to send them somewhere else. >> republicans are getting really tired of these democratics. all of them lie including president obama. the only people that have put anything out there in terms of a plan are republicans. they passed two out of the house. not one time has the senate even been allowed to look at it. mr. obama has done nothing with the plan. the one up there now. if we have worked on either one of them, they may have gotten somewhere. they are so determined that they will send this country into owe

bifon. >> go to our facebook page to see the conference. john smith weighed in this morning. another way to reach out with us. facebook.com/c-span. >> good morning. two things. first, the president bought out some time ago on several occasions that there was a vehicle stuck in a ditch and he and his kroenies had to get down and work and push and sweat to get the car out.

they were going to drive. if republicans wanted to go along, they had to get in the back. in my opinion, he had been driving two 1/2 years. the car is running out of gas. he won't listen to any directions. they continue down the road completely in disarray i just hope the car doesn't get repeaced and put us all in trouble host: from california on the republican line. caller: good morning. i think confidence is going to come back to the nation.

our market is in trouble. i believe the economy in a whole is on a curve i think they are going to turn around. host: do you think the two parties will come together? caller: absolutely. the eyes of the world are on us. we are a smarter nation they all want us to succeed. now a presidential candidate.

thursday, as far as that is concerned. host: orange park, florida on the democrat line. caller: hello. all right. social security, no cap. -- hello. host: you are on. you'll have to turn down your

television set. ok. host: i'll put you on hold. this is from the "washington post." this is the headline. >> next call is spring hill,

florida on the republican line. caller: good morning. i love the show. i want to make two points. one is balanced budget amendment. i couldn't believe they were able to make a pitch they are limiting everybody in congress from spending money. i don't see how they could say it's some kind of partisan thing.

no matter how much it is. it could be 75% for the wealthiest. still, we still were only taking in 19% of our gdp. if we raise taxes, we would have a smaller economy i don't understand. doesn't make any sense. bush was always a little bit unsow if is ti indicated but i think is fuzzy math. host: this is the state of race for the gop nation. the question they ask who would

you vote for host: michigan. go ahead. caller: thank you. i have some real concerns in regards to the issues that surround medicare cuts and medicaid. i think lawmakers need to look at how much money ceos and

hospitals are making. most of them are making half a million plus a year. that's a lot of money. there's probably at least a half a million people that work in this business. it's egregious you would deny anybody healthcare. people working on the floor are making these huge sums of money. i really question timothy geithner. president obama needs to look at how knowledgeable this man really is. currently i'm working for the summer at a store. a lot of customers come in and look at clothing and are dismade

overseas. we have do have a couple of lines. comfy made in the united states and dkg made in the united states. we need to get back to those values. you can't have people working if there aren't any jobs. if there aren't any jobs here, that's not going to solve our problem. not that i'm against i am importants. >> san antonio, texas on the republican line. pam. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a life-long republican and come from a republican family. the measure of society is how it treats the most vulnerable

citizens. this is despicable what they are going to do to the elderly. i think congress should start by eliminating their health insurance and retirement and cutting their budget in half. it's an honor to be a congressman. i've had it. i'm retired now. i didn't use to get out and campaign but i'm going start. this is ridiculous. you look at how vicious they are to these poor individuals saying they have $10 at the end of the month and yet they are piling on all these -- what did that one

lady say? in any event, it's shameful. host: coming up, you'll hear from two legislators as we talk. senator democrat from alaska will join us at 8:30. and a representative from new hampshire, a republican will join us. before we begin, space shuttle atlantis landed this morning, 5:57 a.m. the end of the space shuttle era. here's the landing. >> main gear touch down. now deploying the drag shoot. servicing the nose gear down to the deck. nose gear touch down. having fired the imagination of

a generation. the space shuttle pulls into port for the last time. its voiage at an end. >> following the rise of hitler. >> i started looking for characters through whos eyes i could tell the story. the story of politics and intrigue sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> if you want to be informed of what is happening in the world, it's not so hard. c-span has a digital on line archive that goes back to 1987 where you can basically watch

anything that happened in the house or senate chambers there on your screen. there are sources of information unimaginable 20 years ago. >> the c-span video library maybes it easy to follow legislation. all searchable, shareable and free. the pea body award winning c-span video library. washington your way. >> this weekend on c-span 2.

>> our guest representative of new hampshire serving the first district. thank you for join us. representative, where do you see the best way forward as far as debt discussions? guest: i wish we weren't in this place to begin with. i wish we could have agreed to this when it was $100 billion. we have an august 2 deadline looming. the first thing we need to do is reduce the tensions and rhetoric an focus on trying to solve the problem in a bipartisan, none finger pointing way. while i recognize not all

members agree with that, it did receive support. i would hope the senate take it's up to saturday, if not sooner. you nfsh know if the senate passed, how they would see it. >> i'd like to see a reasonable solution to our spending problem in this country. most people would agree a deficit, $14.5 trillion debt is not good for small business owners or job creators. we don't have years. we have to solve this now. >> is there a workable solution? >> i've taken a look at that framework. there's no legislative text

that's been proposed. what i see, i've got serious concerns on the revenue side. my feeling that what they are looking at eliminating would impact the average middle america. the home interest mortgage situation. in order to have that is a concern. you are talking about ee limiting the charitable deductions. most don't realize that deductions we are talking about are on the personal income side, not the corporate side.

considering most people in this country believe we want to see a balanced budget. >> your concerns about the gang of six. would that be a good trade off.

let's do this properly. very strong vote this does three things. it immediately cut spending. we can go down. we gave on that. i prefer to see 18 or lower. finally, the balanced budget amendment. if we want the government to live within its means suggesting

getting done. could you and other house members buy an extension. remember, we've talked about a minimum of cuts. >> asking them questions.

give us a call. >> website or email. >> the strategy working with a big deal. that kind of deal raising tax rates has been a sticking point. >> as far as your optimism is concerned, how does that bring it closer.

the public policy. we had certain deadlines. same thing when i was a state legislature. as they watch day-to-day. both sides are engaged in tubbings. there is positive energy filling agreement in place. >> could you give us some examples. i met with several legislatures i suspend what you'll see is a

push to encourage. not only taking it up for a vote, look american people in the eye and explain why do you not support a balanced american budget. most americans believe it is a right thing to do to balance your budget whether at home, local municipality, state or county. most people need to remember

caller: i keep hearing these. i wonder who is the ones they are cutting. what are you capping. you are talking about balancing are if i'm not mistaken, tell me if i'm wrong or right. could you answer those questions specif specifically. guest: sure. cutting around budgets we continue to see those kinds of

reductions. to answer your question, where are we cutting? cutting is in the first year. we put $111 billion. that would go through the process it would likely cut the spending broadly caps overtime. historical average of where our spending are. out of our budget. spending about $3.6 to $3.

7 trillion. that's why we talk about performing and preserving entitlements >> you are on. go ahead. caller: i am calling because i'm very much concerned. chipping in to medicare. to see it cut down is outrageous we tipped in all these years.

it is not this looking foreign titlements. this is money we've given to the government in good faith. >> relative, i've listened to seniors and share the concerns we ensure anybody 55 and older was exempted people have

prepared for the existing years that they would receive. if you are 55 and older, there is no change forever for the budget adopted by the house for people like myself, 40, married with two kids. when others like me are 65, it does have benefits only growing at 2, 21/2 a year. sustaining the shir numbers. that is a nightmare the idea

here is let's modify and give younger people the plan they want. >> the representative has a different take especially when it comes to budget care. he will 5acknowledge listen to what he has to say and respond to it. >> sure.

they already tried once slashing medicaid. they don't like that plan. what are they trying to do today? they are going to pass a bill that says unless the congress in the next two weeks passes the constitutional amendment to put their budget into the contusion of the utsz, they are going to refuse to pay the bills of the country and let the koimenter sink. host: congressman? guest: i have a different view of my friend. we sit on the budget committee

together. american people want facts. medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years. that is a fact. the argument they are making on the floor is a little less restrictive. only five democrats supporting the balanced budget. it is not about politics. let's do that bring it forward

this week consider it as a conference. caller: i believe both parties are acting like children at this point. republicans have been spending money if you took my tax dollars and put it in an investment fund, then i'd be a climbnal.

you look at the amount of money we can spend to get these goods. first of all guest: thank you for the call. i share your frustration this is my first term. when i was a mayor, we had differences of opinions. we always got something accomplished that's in part what this freshman class is here to change. we are here to get rid of waste

fraud and boos. getting rid of hundreds of billions of waste and only spend what we take in and only what is necessary. applying that principle is not something people are used to let's embrace one another as americans. taking time. challenging at times to watch. i'm optimistic as part of the process that we can come to an accord that makes good public policy and sends us on a path to reduce our spending and give job creators predict ability again

so we can see the rate come down to a more reasonable number. host: the democrat line. caller: good morning. i believe democrats don't have their debt. put somewhere where no one could borrow from it. thank you. guest: thank you for the

question. it was the republican that's got us here over the last 2 paubt 5 years. again, as i mentioned earlier. we have a responsibility to work together. the problem we agree upon is that the debt is too high. deficit spending is unacceptable. you couldn't do that at home. a business couldn't survive. we shouldn't live this way. what is supposed to be issued, those checks are then issued.

the chance we have if we don't raise the debt ceiling is the deficit. he kacan't guarantee checks wil go out. paying debt and social security, then after that, you have to start making tough decisions. we have an obligation to honor our bills. we have a responsibility to change the amount we are borrowing. we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. we are not far off from that day. >> congressman, if you were to

ask why do you need amendment. >> right now, i don't know many people trust washington to do the right thing. we are trying to come to an accord on reducing our deficit and getting to balanced budget. as you've seen, when you send money to washington, having the country decide whether they want a balanced amendment is the best alternative. i'd love to say each representative would come up with the balanced budget. we're not there yet. what we are trying 20 do in this house is provide a path to balance. the best way to do this in the long term is to offer the opportunity to the states, the decision of whether or not we add the opportunity to balance

the budget. host: the question asks if there is a four-year phase. caller: that's enough of a phase in. and by the way, if it is ratified and you start to see a path for rat if i indication, you'll see congress start to tighten their belt and make the unpopular political decisions. i think that process would actually serve as that period of time where congressmen can get serious about spending. randy, go ahead. caller: the caller from tallahassee stole part of my line. the way i see it, all of them in

congress, they are all acting like school children. it's like a bickering over this that or the other. there should be an easier way to come to the agreement that they can all live with. it makes no sense to me. we are sitting here talking about shutting down the government. like the man said, we need that money to pay social security. they can use and change and cut places but those are not areas they even should consider.

there is optimism most americans agree spending levels are too high. running deficit and debt is not good public policy. when i go home and ask people, do you think we are taxed too little or spending too much. would you like us to solve these challenges. most people tend to agree we do have to solve these problems i'd like to see a more dig tied approach. we are go to get there is my view. we'll get there and continue to make sure at least the way i act and condone myself is in a

matter respectful and responsibly. could you elaborate on the portion you cap. that cap and balance originally was 18%. we modified that language to 19. 9%. it is about 25% now. it gradually goes down. you could take that in one department and spread it across the entire budget. you could take the modification. that would take the process in order for us to dernl where those cuts would come from. they would send it over depending on what they want to do >> i feel comfortable.

most people again recognize we have to bring that number down across many different areas >> these are the facts. that's where the cult will come from. social security will come down by 20%. my mother is 79 years old. i'm worried about her and my son who is disabled gets very little help as it is you better get

your i.d.s. if you don't have your i.d. or gun license, that's where this country is headed. i am voting for obama. i have never in all these years, not since clinton in this office and this went on, this same thing is happening again these are talking points. >> i share her concerns. this is why we exempted people 55 years and older.

they say it goes bankrupt in nine years something has to be done. right now, the growth rate is 8%. we take it down to 2%. you have greater presentation. something most people don't realize, the wealthier you are, the less dollars you get attributed to your medicare. we try to address if you were at a lower income level, you have access to greater dollars on behalf of your medicare. i'm not sure where that figure comes from. we are going back to 2008 levels. looking at the spending levels.

the president has increased the spending. you are over 80% increase if spending. that's why we are at an increase of our current debt. republicans had a hand in this too. that's why i repeatedly let people know. it's about saving this country. host: a question, increase the revenue. when we need are more taxpayers to increase revenues. giving consumer confidence

again. that will reduce the unemployment rate from a high of 9.2%. 29 months now of 8% or higher. that is unacceptable in this country. there is a way to do it. make sure that job creator has what that cost will be. regulatory, dachl, healthcare are the three things. manufacturing also and things of that nature. if you can establish those predictors, you will see job creators invest again. then we can have a debate and dialogue about do we pay down our debt, deficit. are there certain areas you would see spending. i don't think we need to raise the rates in order to increase

rates. host: do you see a likelihood in the house of something passing that includes a tax revenue component? guest: it depends on what it is. if it is raising rates, that is not supported by the house. the house has been very clear about that. we do not support raising rates. we look at other components of it. do you want to get rid of the charity deduction and do you want to get rid of the home deduction? those thing also affect every single american. when he talks about the corporate jet loophole. the top ten tax expenditures, nine of them are on the personal income side. in that loophole he's talking about is something he put in if you eliminate it. fine, if you want to eliminate that, you've got a couple of

unions against that because it affects job creation. it doesn't solve the problem. if you notice, the president has not put a plan in writing. that's for a reason. the only plan put in writing is a house plan. i'd like to see something in writing for us to consider. it's very difficult to say are you for revenue enhancers if you don't know what those are. the president refuses to put that into writing. if you want to ensure we hit in an august 2 deadline, we have to put something in writing. host: we have about seven more minutes with our guest. kansas on the line. caller: request kurt was still around, writings and short stories about what is going on right now. i'll be one of the few people

that say i don't envy you guys right now. a lot of the calls coming in saying you guys aren't acting

like adults. guest: thank you for your comments. as people have watched this debate, i share the frustration and concern. it's one of the reasons i tried to run in the first place to try to change not only the institution but public policy in the long term to have a greater, stronger america. most people want that. they have some differences of opinion of how to get there. you mentioned the term balance sheet. if you had a chance to invest

comparing it with a top 50 stocks in america, which would you choose? you see a balance sheet. you see your largest bond holder is china from a foreign debt perspective. that concerns you. if you were going to turn that company around, you would strengthen up and become more sufficie sufficient. you'd make sure you increase revenues not by raising the price of the product but by becoming more effective in how you produce it. make sure you lower those prices we need to apply some of those

principles. that's the approach i take and probably the former mayor in me i had spending freezes and hiring freezes in place when i was mayor. there is a way to manage through the crisis that we have. you can do it effectively. you can do it through good government policies. that's what the country wants to see. they want to see that willingness to try to work together. we are trying to offer it. i know it doesn't happen overnight. we did get that support. i hope we can get that in the senate. >> you understand the point of a bond rating. >> people have asked me that

question. on behalf of the largest city go to new york and talk to the rating agencies. i had to implement an immediate 50% reduction in our spending. i wanted to ensure the asset i managed that it was strong in the eyes of our rating agencies. the same thing does apply. you don't want to see tho reduced. if it gets a double downgrade, that means interest rates are going to spike ultimately costing taxpayers more money. this is a unique opportunity to say that we are going to fundamentally change our habits. most people would agree that the

spending habits are unacceptable there are different positions of how to curb that spending. when you see facts. most people would look and say that's incredible. did your pay go up 2.5%. most people say no, people are out of work or under employed. when you add that, you are talking talki talking 18-19% of the country. we'll have more dollars to try to figure out how the federal government functions. there has to be a component where we save. get this country back to

balance. that's what i'm here to do and what most of the freshman class is here to do and what we can accomplish. >> the villages, florida. last call on the democrat line. caller: good morning. for the representative, i have a comment followed by a question. my comment is that the published $14. 5 trillion deficit is really not the true deficit. politicians have been hiding the actual deficit many years. here's why. all of the money borrowed, that money has to be added to the federal debt and multiplied by two. american people really do not

know at this point didn't know what the true deficit is the question is how much every man, woman and child is responsibly for. guest: thank you. you are correct, we have obligations we have not figured out how to pay for. to answer your question, it really depends on how you

calculate it, it could be with all our future costs over $100,000 host: question about political cost. did a favor ability rating. guest: nobody is happy with congress right now. people are not happy with congress. minute you become part of this institution, you become part of the problem. despite the reason people send you there, you do become part of the problem. you'll see we'll solve this

problem and you'll ask people, tell me about your representative. is he doing what you would like him to do. i go back to new hampshire every weekend and host job fairs. taun hall meetings. people appreciate that willingness. you'll see as we get into the campaignish cycle of politics again. host: thank you for your time. coming up, another perspective from the senator from alaska. and looking at the year anniversary of dodd-frank. all of that after an update from c-span radio. >> missed deadlines of the new information law will be the focus of a hearing it morning.

the financial law known as, dodd-frank signed into law a year ago today. created in response to the 2008 financial crisis. chairman ben bernanke will be testifying this morning. you can hear it live on c-span radio. bloomberg news reports that consumers are increasing to use credit cards. commerce says after tax income adjusted for inplace fell paupt 1% january-may. the space shuttle, commander speaking after the landing said after 30 years of flights, the shuttle has earned its place in history. the landing marked the end of the program. nasa's next stop will be an astronaut and then mars. those are some of the latest

headlines on c-span radio. >> live on sunday ann coulter. live on book tv. >> live on the 150th anniversary with call in programs including dikenson college professor. looking at the social, military

leaders facing challenges that face both north and south. get the complete week in schedule at c-span.org/history. >> eliminated from the jury panel. >> listen to c-span radio nationwide on xm channel 119.

>> this weekend, our previous guest looking forward to the vote on cutting cap and balance. guest: we have a lot of budget proposals in front of the senate. we are not going anywhere. my best is that it is not going to pass. it is a lot of effort to get past this. what is interesting about this whole process. been on the budget committee little over a year, year and a half. different than when i was mayor. right now, we have multiple proposals to put on the table. that's good. a range from wide varieties of

ideas. they put out a piece of budget. looking at the depth of it. more of an impact of the ryan ability. costing seniors even more than what the ryan bill was going to cost. i know as a mayor, one of the most important things we can do is invest in infrastructure. the private sector attracts to it when you build water, sewer and roads.

all of this can fail when it comes and we'll get on with business. spending three and four days having show and tell instead of buckling down knowing we have a tough decision to make. here we are in a situation where the budget deficit or the debt of the nation has accumulated by democrats and republicans over a decade plus and now you have to make decisions. host: what is the most workable plan at this point guest: i think the work we did was pretty solid. i sat on the veteran's

committee. it dealt with $4 trillion in budget cuts. some making sure millionaires and billionaires pay what they are paying. also getting rid of a pile of these loopholes and tax shelter scams built in over the years and making other people pay for them. it's a combo and tough calls. there's almost $800 billion over 10 years then there is efforts.

can you do it before august 2? getting that framework and deal with the debt limit. i believe you can. >> number is on the screen. the talks on the line. 202-624-111 for democrats. 202-624-1115 for republicans. 202-624-0760 for independents.

guest: when you look overtime what's happened and efforts by some that really dismant ammed our program. putting over $1 billion in our economy. people have paid into it. i do think there's efforts still to be done with the military side, the dod side and some additional cuts. they don't deal with millionaires or billionaires.

i don't get anyone calling me and saying please keep reducing down my taxes. i can speak with someone who has been in business many years. that's the real desire of business people i desire on a regular basis in alaska. what i appreciate is that they are touching tax expenditures and budget cuts. i have on my website tax reform

legislation. we go six down to three. a by partisan effort on tax reform. we proposed this months ago. we failed at any deficit reduction. at the end of the day, you have to have tax reform. you have to make us more competitive. you want to express these individual rates down a little bit so there's more capacity back in the consumer's hand. we suggested we go further. it is simple. our proposal gets it into one-page. can you imagine, you do your taxes on one-page. 70 or 80% of people do not itemize. they don't get the incentives. most people don't get those benefits. if i'm down here working in a

store or restaurant, a lot of those people working everyday do 2409 take advantage of those benefits. our tax reform, i'm a big believer of shrinking that down and go on with building this economy. host: kansas on the republican line. caller: to both of you, i am so unhappy with both parties. i really don't know what party i am now because i'm so unhappy with everything. i think you probably feel the same way both of you. the thing of it is, i'm thinking people are being paid outside of the seniors, even though we are

having these big tax cuts into medicare affecting hospitals and doctors and we people who are not being treated. why not just cutted off the money to the people that are doing this to us, when is the congress and the president. guest: the general question is hold us accountable. i can it will you in my office, we've cut almost 1 million out of our budget. we've frozen the pay of my employees. i've offered over the last two years, an amendment to make sure senators do not receive a pay increase. i signed a letter saying if we shut 2 down, we don't get paid. that simple.

we have to be held accountable. we should be held accountable to a higher level. a democrat, green party republican. this is about the people who have paid attention. it's interesting to me how both parties serving today have am kneesia. they forgot how they got here. we are all part of this. better figure it out. this country has too much going on. if you are on the same page. i like former mayors. we have to make decisions. i'm listening to him saying i want to know more about this

congressman. i don't know -- was he a republican. hey, if he hassan interest to get this done. when he mentioned he was a mayor, i said, ok, he gets it. at the end of the day, you have to make decisions. they are not going to be fun. if we don't do this, the alternative is worse. host: access the video library over the things said over the last several weeks. go to our website to find all our information. our next calling is indiana. steve on the democrat's line. thanks for holding on. go ahead.

caller: in my book, republicans are trying to destroy this country because there is no way you shoild not raise the debt ceiling. and there should be something attached to it. the way i look at it, if they start fixing the roads and stuff, they are not doing that. they haven't created one job since they started here. they keep saying, well, we are going to create a bunch of jobs. where are the jobs at? guest: i'll first say, again as i mentioned, where we are is where we are. not going to be easy. you are right. if we do not raise the debt limit.

this is for expenditures of the past. we have to do with it today. in my home state, we agree on this point together. we have to move this debt up. if we don't do that, we'll have a serious problem. a lot of people think that's a washington issue. at the and of the day, it will trickle down to every person in this koisht. 100% of the transactions going on are based on the dollar. when you go pump that gas, if we default on our debt, that gas will go higher than it is today. it will go across the board. if we could have a simple raise the debt and deal with it but at the end of the day, we have to

deal with the deficit. this is not a problem we can continue to close our eyes to. i can see this is a tough decision. they know they'll have to vote against those things. that is going to be a part of the process. it is not going to be fun. at the end of the day, you got to deal with the deficit. look down the road. the end product is our country is stronger. we have a more stable financial situati situation. host: another tweet asked this. what is the down side to a budget amendment, if any? guest: i voted against it. it lost by one vote since i've been here. there's another proposal from utah. i will support his effort. you have to be careful when you

draft these. you have to make sure certain elements are protect. we can't predict tragedies like katrina or the heat wave now. or the sense of an engagement of a war. the effort being worked on is a balanced approach. it protected issues like social security. people want to melled that in, it needs to be more sustainable. i've supported one in the past. if it is drafted right, i'll

support it in the future. >> president obama said he wasn't for short-term extension. now that's back on the table. does the senate have the will to pass a short-term extension? guest: that's a great question. all we do here. we used to go to meetings at 2:00 in the morning. i can tell you, with my nine year old son, this is what you need to do. i expect it. you got to make decisions. i'm nervous about the short term. what i prefer is we say we are going to raise the debt limit.

here's the framework. what kind of general concepts do the work and close the deal. if you say let's add another six days or a week. making no decision is what a lot of people around here prefer to do. we need to say we need to make a decision. it's going to be tough. some people may not win reelection. that's life. i remember when i came in as mayor in 2003, we have a hole in the budget. if i had sat around three years, i wouldn't have been back in office. be honest with voters. tell them what's going on. they may not agree. they appreciate you telling

them. if you lose your election, you lose. but we better get on with safing this country first. host: elected at 26 years old and served nearly 10 years. that thought, a couple weeks ago, something asked you about the possibility of voting on some type of legislation, you said it was a 50% at that point. on the senate side, things have changed. we are in a 60-65% chance of getting something done. now we are divided within the divisions. you have to get to some number. when you already have 40 or so much house republicans saying we are not going to have any debt increase, you have a little more

complicated there. i don't know if they quoted. they saidern this place in an hour from now, those pertages could change. i continue to be optimistic. every challenge when i had to build business there is between all americans. sometimes it is foggy. not sure where that is. every problem and challenge we have are solved. it's been a rough road at times this will determine the future of our country in many ways. if we are not careful, we'll be

on a road we won't be happy with. host: on the line from florida. go ahead. caller: i'd like to start a movement with bernie sanders. he speaks without a forked tongue. i'm a vet, three years overseas. retired union worker. i'm sure there's many of us out there with those qualifications. the tea party is the advanced team of the billionaire party. host: do you have a question for our guest? caller: i think big business sold our country out. why, for cheap labor. host: to clarify, sanders is

from vermont. guest: he is an independent. what he is good about, he tells it like it is. the catchy phrase but really what's the real work we are doing. the gentleman read from florida. his point on the tea party. i actually said this last week when i was back there for 24 hours was who does the tea party represent? one is people just frustrated. then there's another piece that are just anti-government. they don't like government. i understand that. this whole idea that people who say they are tea party folks and

unwilling to put on the table and get rid of tax shelters, loopholes. why we want to continue to give enormous ben fits to millionaires and billionaires. it doesn't connect. tea party folks are about reformling government, at least from alaska. they are in conflict. it is difficult to watch this. if you are a tea party member, list it out. the first thing should be getting rid of tax shelters and loopholes. when those happen, the average taxpayer is picking up the bill for that. that's what i'm for. everybody in congress wants to be for. here is the 30 or 40 or 50

loopholes we want out. i haven't seen that. it's amazing to me. it is a confused environment to say the least. host: kansas on the line. go ahead. caller: i would like to know, are they going on this debate. is it going to affect anybody that is 65 on the veteran's benefit? guest: it sdee penneds on what the outcome is.

guest: there will be no money. 40% of what we spend is borrowed money. that will affect everyone across the board. you can rest assured that a lot of us will be strong in protecting veterans benefits. they served our country.

we need to make sure that is protected. what is coming over from the house will have a negative impact. host: this just came over the wire that senator conrad says a short-term extension may be the best solution for the white house. there is a gang of six senators that is backing groups of $3.70 trillion in deficit reduction cuts. guest: that is interesting. i saw him walking out and he told me good luck. if it is three months, two months, because we do not want to make the decision, then i'll have a hard problem with that. i am one of those who signed the letter.

yet to be careful when you say that 40 people support the plan. i support the efforts of the bipartisanship. i will say that is occurring on the senate side. we have to be careful when we say of support is 40 and what that actually means. like the set, 2.5 years -- i have been marking on my column. host: next call on the democrat's line. caller: thank you. the first thing i would like to say is that with the other callers, everything that barry sanders says is totally a joke. i have a couple of questions, though.

do you think that not raising the debt ceiling -- the things that will happen maybe, there will be a run on the banks and people will not be able to afford the new cars that they bought and things like that. and another thing. the reason that new jobs have not been created is because the republicans in the house are more concerned with their social issues. thank you very much. guest: first off, your question on what happens if we do not raise the debt limit, everyday americans, can they buy a car? or will they be able to get a home loan? i would just give you my mother's experience. she is on social security. she is in the process of buying

a retirement home. her planned closing is august 19. i have to tell our the i'm not sure of that as possible. there'll be a ripple effect right through all the interest rates across this country. if you have bought a car and you are on a floating rate and your rate can add just based on market conditions, all your rates will go up. if you are a small business and you borrowed money, like an alaska we have the tour industry that is very robust, so if you borrowed money at the beginning of the season to care yourself through and at the end of the season you pay the loan off, well. if that is on a floating rate, then the odds are you'll pay more. or what can happen is if the banks do not have the capital or

capacity because the larger markets do not have the capacity because the rates are too high, that can i get as many access points or car loans and on up. it does not matter if you are for raising the debt limit or against it on a philosophical and. it is -- on a philosophical end. if you bought a house and you get foreclosed on, the house is taken away. that is a situation we are in here. if we do not pay the bills, everything they think we're paying for will go away. this is a serious problem. i remember during my campaign in 2008 and i would say the juneau that 20% of your taxes go to pay interest on debt? i had more people falling asleep in those meetings than ever before.

nobody cared, but then when the crash occurred in 2008 people started waking up. i remember going to these meetings and i did not want to talk about the dead even though it was an important issue, because no one cared. the last thing i will say, i agree about the social issues. the last razzberry libertarian. -- but last one is very libertarian. we need to deal with the debt, the deficit, and work on jobs in this country. that is what we should be focused on. all those other social issues are a diversion when the economy is very fragile. host: it is said that the gang of six is not have a real plan. the only real plan is cut, cap and balance. guest: that president's plan was

his budget. a lot of people said that budget failed in this senate, but that was because they wanted to make the statement they have been making. the other budget he proposed was much different. the plan that the house has, some call it cut, cap and balance, some call it cut, cap and killed medicare. -- and kill medicare. the gang of six does not have all the details, but they have a strong framework. that is because the process here is that when she sent the budget, and it is approved, it goes through the details of the legislation. that is a two part process here.

to me, there are a lot of catch phrases. people call it cut, cap, and kill medicare. we need to forget all those slogans and focus on what we need to do and find a happy medium. we need to get on with solving the problems of this country. host: on the republican line from texas. caller: this is an emergency. no budget has been sent to the senate or white house. i cannot help but think about time wasted by both parties. i would suggest let's pass a balanced budget amendment, hold off on any changes to

entitlements, pass the bill committing to complete overhaul of the tax code, and get rid of obamacare. guest: it is very interesting. when the setting up it starts moving along. the budget sets parameters for each committee to operate. as frustrated as you are, the problem we have is there is not enough votes. everything takes 60 votes, which i think is ridiculous. getting to that point to get on the table is a struggle. yesterday, we just passed the

military construction and veterans budget. let me make a note on that. only two senators opposed it. 97 supported. that is an amazing statement. we just passed a budget in an appropriations bill for military construction for the va. it passed with a huge margin. i cannot find that covered anywhere today. i'm looking. i know somewhere in some article there is a story about it. that shows opportunity here. i have battled obama. alaska and texas have a lot in common when it comes to oil and gas. we do not have a really good energy plan in this country. it is costing consumers and it

is a national-security problem. there are people benefit throughout the country from these jobs. we are moving forward and our aggressive. to be very frank, people in my own party -- i count on them on a regular basis. democrats are wrong on oil and gas. host: chicago, illinois. david on our independent line. caller: good morning. speaking of that oil and gas, i think that is a large part of the key. we have to raise revenue -- raise revenue. we have to do that without hurting the recovery.

to do so, i think we need to shift from the taxes that are known to her job growth, the payroll tax is probably the worst. it is basically a fine for employing people and a fine for being an employee. i think we need to switch that over to what your state has. you take the natural resources as a common asset, you invest, and the people get a check every year. is that correct? guest: correct. caller: we should do this on a national level. would not take federal lands, the minerals. it is a joke the way those things are. we give away hugely the label spectrums to at&t and to verizon. the economists have showed it does not hurt the economy when

you collect rent on resources. guest: very good question. in alaska we have a unique model. we believe the natural resources in our state are owned collectively by the people. the state government is holding it in trust, but their job is not to exploit it for their own benefit. 25% of our revenue goes into -- a fund. let me step one more level for david and say that i agree in the broader perspective. as i mentioned to the last caller, we need a comprehensive energy plan. it makes no sense for us to buying from countries will, from country -- to buy oil from countries who hate us.

we should have a comprehensive plan. you name it, we should have it. china has figured this out. they are investing in energy companies all across this globe because they understand in order for their economy to be strong, robust and survive, sustainable energy is a piece of the equation. some of our partners, canada and mexico are neighbors. but as i said, a lot come from foreign countries that do not like us. we can figure out how to do this. every time i talk to members say they have done an energy plan. we have to pick up this. in alaska when i think of the thousands of jobs in

construction or you think of national petroleum, revenue stream to a federal government will be in the billions -- not in the millions. it is huge. it is a job creator. it brings tax revenue to the federal government. it brings national security. you can make decisions that are in the best interest of your country. host: your military funding bill that you spoke about it is written about on the hill. two other things off twitter really quick.

guest: it is a 10 year proposal. does not have a resolution number. you can go to our web site. you can find elements of that budget. this thing called congressional budget office is a mystery plays somewhere in washington. there require about a tenure budget. i don't necessarily agree with all their process. that could take two hours of discussion. host: this is from aaronr2000. guest: i the the first thing you should do is talk to your legislator and tell them this is unacceptable. out of 80 + signs we have raised

the limit, this is when they're not want to do it when it is the most fragile. you can see what the dilemma is. i think the first task we need to do and tell them this is unacceptable. we can argue and debate about the deficit and debt, but this debt limit after 80+ times, we need to do that. then shift, and get serious. host: mark begich. thank you. in our last section, we take a look at the dodd frank bill. we'll do that after this update from c-span radio. >> unemployment numbers in this

hour show that more people applied for benefits last week. applications rose by 10,000. the job market is weak. turning to the hacking investigation in britain, the prime minister says that the tabloids and phone hacking scandal has created a once in a generation chance to clean a murky relations between media, police and politicians. he also defended his private discussions with executives. meanwhile, also in britain today a group of computer hackers who call themselves anonymous claimed to have breached nato security and access to restricted material. they say it would be irresponsible to publish most of the material, but that is sitting on about 1 gigabyte of

data. they have posted a document that appears to be restricted from nato. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> it takes a behind this? look says broadcast and cable. the l.a. times calls the required to be beating. it solves mysteries that even nicolas cage can't contour. the original documentary c-span on sunday night at 9:00 eastern. the supreme court is now available as an enhancer e-book. -- enhanced e-book. this includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice.

add to your experience by watching multimedia clips. available now or ever e-books are sold. you're watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is washington journal, our live call-in program connecting you with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview program. on saturday, the communicators. on sunday, newsmakers, and q &a. you can also watch our programming any time that c- span.org. a public service created by america's cable companies. washington journal continues.

host: joining us, david clark from reuters. one year ago, we kept hearing the terms dodd-frank thrown around. what was the purpose? >> guest: the legislation was reacted in response to the financial crisis. this was essentially the obama response toon's make a future crisis less likely and to prevent future bailouts. that was the purpose of the law. one of the big issues is the idea on whether not banks and financial firms are too big to fail, meaning the government will step in with taxpayer funds to bail them out.

proponents of the law say that the law specifically prevents this from happening. there's a lot of skepticism about that both in the financial markets and with republicans on capitol hill. they're arguing that if you look at what is happened to banks since the law was enacted, some banks have gotten bigger. credit agencies have said they are not convinced the government will ultimately step then and bailout a large bank that is about to fail. the law specifically prohibits that, so it is a false argument. host: when the legislation was put into effect, to talk about that avenues it took to try and prevent these things from happening again. guest:sure. it is a huge clock with a lot of different parts. one of the specific things is what does the government do with a financial institution it is about to fail? they put in the law with a call

the resolution authority, which allows the government to seize the firm and liquidated in what will hopefully be an orderly way. the law gives the fdic the ability to take over a bank or another large financial firm, selling off in parts, it is supposed to be a more stable way of letting this bank or financial company to fail as opposed to the bankruptcy process which may not move as quickly. host: it has not been used yet? guest: no, it has not. host: how much of the law has been put into place or enacted? guest: there's still a lot more to be done. one law firm that tracks the

says there are about 400 rules and they estimate at this time about 12% of those have been enacted. we look at the big issues in the law and what has been done. the idic -- the fdic has laid that out. there is still a lot of aspects to the law that have not been finalized. there has been a lot of proposed rules, but have not been finalized. there's also the issue of what additional oversight the federal reserve should have. later this summer they're supposed to put our rules of

what additional oversight that will perform on these firms. that will be things like tougher capital standards in case there is a financial shock and they do not have enough money to survive it. it will also be doing additional what they call stress tests of these birds. -- on these firms to see how vulnerable they are. host: if you want to ask questions, you can do so. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-624-1111. the number to call for our republican line is 202-624-1115. the number to call for our independents line is 202-624- 0760. journal@cspan.org is the e-mail. if you're interested in finding out a status report, the senate

banking committee will be holding a hearing. you can see that live today at 10:00 on c-span 3. the president, one is talking about the consumer protection bureau, one of the things he talked about was resistance to elements of dodd-frank. i want you to listen to what he says in an expanded you would. -- and then expand if you would. guest:sure. host: there was an announcement about who was going to head it. guest: the new protection -- the new consumer protection bureau is a new agency. the idea behind agency is previously that bank regulators,

their job was to make sure banks were safe and sound. the idea of the new consumer agency is supposed to come from the consumer's perspective. it will regulate mortgages, credit cards, and make sure that people know what type of deals they are signing. earlier this week president obama nominated richard cordray. he was until this past fall the attorney general in ohio. he is the pick for the agency. obviously it has been said that the agency was conceived as being created by elizabeth warren. she did not get picked which disappointed a lot of people who are fans of hers. for whatever reason, the white house decided it would be better to nominate richard cordray than her. host: will that be a big deal? guest: it will be a big deal.

it is facing a lot of opposition. it is all that they opposed richard cordray, but they oppose the consumer protection bureau in this form. they have outlined three things they want to see done. the way the bureau is created, it would be run by a single director. republicans say they want it run by a board similar to the way some of the other bank regulations are. it would be a five person board with a head. they also want to see the current get their budget from the federal reserve, they want their budget approved each year by congress during the preparation process. democrats are saying these are not improvements, they're trying to weaken -- to weaken the bureau.

he disagrees. he says it is too powerful. that is with these changes are intended to do. there's really a standoff over the agency right now. as of now there's really no clear way to see the senate ever confirming richard cordray for the job. the president does have the ability to put into that job when the senate leaves for recess. if the senate is gone over august, he could put him in that job which means he could serve in that position for a more limited amount of time. host: the president talked about resistance from republicans. >> we have recently been reminded why this job is so important. there is an army of lobbyists and lawyers working to water down the protection and reforms that we passed. the already spent tens of millions of dollars this year to try and weekend the laws that

are designed to protect consumers. they have allies in congress who are trying to undo the project -- the process we have made. the fact is the financial crisis and recession or not the result of normal economic cycles. there were abuses. there was a lack of smart regulations. we're not going to shrug our shoulders and hope it does not happen again. back tot going to go time or our whole economy was vulnerable to a financial crisis. that is why reform matters and this bureau matters. i will fight any efforts to repeal or undermine the changes we have passed. we will make sure this bureau does the right thing for middle- class families all across the country. host: what would you add to that? guest: it almost sounds like a

political campaign. democrats say we're on the side of consumers and that is what this bureau were to and republicans are calling it a big government overreach and that will prevent people from having a lot of choice in credit cards and mortgage markets. i think one thing to add is that the house will at a bill that seeks to make changes along lines that were described earlier making them run by a board and making regulators have more say. that bill will likely be passed by the house but it does not have any real chance of getting into law. hen richard cordray's nomination was announced, there was speculation there may be a deal on some of these changes to the bureau. so far, you have not heard any of that. you heard the president's speech saying he would not make any changes.

republicans have not really given any indication they're willing to give in on any of their demands. host: on twitter. guest: but there is definitely that argument out there. like a said. there's a lot of debate over too big to fail. as far as unintended consequences, there is an argument that just by simply saying -- one of the things under the law is that the government will designate firms that are too big to fail and need more supervision. if the government steps in, and is actually naming firms that they believe are too big to fail, that could end up being a benefit for these firms in the

sense that they may be able to raise money more easily because investors will believe they're sort of backed by the government. the flip side is a lot of these firms are lobbying very heavily. there would be a lot more regulation and oversight. people talk to unintended consequences, it is a big bill and there's a lot to talk about. that is one thing you hear, is that the government should not be naming these firms. host: on our democrat's line, you are up first. caller: good morning. regulation does one thing. it puts a small bankers out of business because they cannot afford to meet those regulations. which you have is congress being played for the giants in the

economy. there are nothing but bankers and wall street people in the obama administration. guest: the issue of how small banks are treated has been a very big topic. small banks have complained lot about the law. their basic argument is that they are small, so any additional regulation is a real burden on them. anything more they have to comply with is a big cost for them and they do not have the big profits that larger banks do to offset that. the law does specifically exempt small banks from a lot of the provisions in there. that is the supporters retort. the rules are not aimed at small banks. they will actually benefit if a larger banks do have more regulation, it will even the playing field with them. one of the places you saw that

is under the law, any time someone uses a debit card to buy anything, banks charge the retailers a certain fee for allowing people to use their debit card. there's a lot try to restrict the amount banks can charge retailers for that feat. it did specifically exempt small banks from the crackdown, but they were highly skeptical about if it would work. so far, it has been one of the most intense lobbying fights. host: massachusetts, republican line. good morning. caller: quite a few calls prior to mind. there is a lady that came on your program and she said that she had not voted for obama, but this time she would.

she made an analogy and compared obama to newt gingrich. host: in the interests of time, you have to stick to the question. caller: how can people say that they criticize obama, and then they say they will vote for him. host: we will leave it there. next caller, miami florida. republican line. caller: i received an e-mail about something with the dodd- frank rules. can i read and you can stop me whenever you want and tell me what you think about this? host: could summarize it for us? caller: is about owner financing

for mortgages. it would be easier if i could read it. the federal reserve wants to eliminate -- purchased mortgages. they will do this by a using the dodd-frank act. unless buyers can qualify for finance. guest: i am not sure to develop the caller is referring to. i have to see the whole thing. the dodd-frank does have a few provisions aimed at the mortgage market. obama administration and congress have yet to do that. a lot of the rules are geared at making sure that banks take the

steps necessary to make sure that whoever they lend to can't pay back the loan. in the financial crisis banks were simply lending to anybody and were not asking for documentation. the result was that people who cannot afford the homes were getting mortgages and then defaulting on them. host: cleveland, ohio. democrat's line. caller: why is it that every time we have something that passes for the benefit of the citizens, do we end up having to get into a dog fight with republicans over whether or not we should enact the bill or not? if our congress cannot react to the job they were elected to do by going to washington, maybe it is time to take the really tough decisions out of the hands congress and put it on national ballots for the people to

decide. host: limit to one twisted that if i can. guest: right. that is one of the arguments you hear. the financial industry is not eager to have regulation and additional oversight by the regulators. their concern is there not being allowed to do what they think is in the best interest of their business of the government is in their dictating. that is the argument you here. the flip side is that people who are voting for and supporting dodd-frank is that we need to be there, because leading up to the financial crisis had led to a big panic can cause economic damage. -- caused economic damage. host: fla., on our independent line. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for letting me get on. our country the -- what is wrong with our country? i will not vote for a woman. host: we will leave it there. i ask you this, senator dodd no longer in congress but senator frank is. how long will they to get these pieces working? guest: he is obviously a big supporter on the law. his name is on it. he is pretty vocally defending it. he was chairman when the law was written. then republicans won back the house. in the house, the minority does not have a whole lot of power.

the top of things he said it is that he is recognizing republicans can make some changes or to attempt to make some changes. none of them are ever going to become law will president obama is in the white house and democrats controlled the senate. one of the arguments he put out is that he believes the law is popular with the public. unlike the health care law the president obama signed, republicans have for the most part not been calling for a full repeal of dodd-frank. evelyn taken on little pieces at a time. they do not want to touch this because it is popular with the public. now that he is in the minority, he does not have nearly as much power as he did before. host: the senate banking committee will be meeting in

about 20 minutes on this topic. what is the nature of this hearing a lot of questions will senators be asking? guest: the hearing is scheduled because it is the one-year anniversary, so they're bringing in regulators to talk about it. the point of the hearing is a status report. a big focus is going to be on the consumer bureau. i think you can anticipate there'll be a lot of back-and- forth over the bureau and whether it is a good thing, whether it is too powerful, whether it does not have enough congressional oversight. i think you'll also hear a lot today about this idea that the

government can essentially named big financial firms, and if they fail will be at the red to the financial system. what they have not done yet is really lay out how they will make that decision. there's been a lot of questions about what they will do in who they will pick. host: the hearing takes place in room 538. that will be starting at 10:00 on c-span 3 if you want to watch it. about the bureau, one quick question. who runs a now that there's been a person named to run it? guest: well, under the law at the treasury department said the bureau, and technically the treasury secretary is overseeing it until someone is in place. it is an independent europe, but

until they get a director in place is still under the directory of the treasury department. that is one of the issues of the bureau too. there certain things it can do under the law that will not be able to do. one of its charges is to oversee non-bank lenders. until it has a director in place, it cannot actually oversee those firms or write rules regulating them. about thee talking wall street floor. alabama, republican line. good morning. caller: it is curious to me when

he had all the authority to look after these things when he was on the finance committee. he is given up his authority and it seems like congress all want to do each other's jobs. any comments? guest: congress has definitely come under criticism for the job they did overseeing the regulators. regulators were not doing their jobs. if they did their job would not have all of foreclosures we have today. there's obviously some responsibility on that and and have come under that criticism.

in response they said they needed an agency, so they created that. whether that is a good thing or more government, i think depending on what your political persuasion is there will always be that debate. host: from san antonio, texas we haven't e-mail. guest: regulating industries came under a lot of fire. they were giving a thumbs-up that turned out not to be very safe. some of the real critics of the agency wanted to address these issues. when the issues is that raising

agencies charge the people a feet and that is a conflict of interest. the law does not expand on that or go as far as some people want. i believe most of those rules have not been issued yet. host: the senate banking hearing will take place at 10:00. petersburg, florida. chalk on the independent line. -- chuck on the independent line. caller: what are the banks called what they really are, socialized banks? it really is. host: in your opinion, what was mr. paulson said role? sir? collor left us, go ahead.

-- caller left us, go ahead. guest: there was a lot of anger over the bailouts. should the government take taxpayers' money to keep these businesses alive? supporters of the law say that is what we have enabled this new system. that we will not have to provide taxpayer money. there's obviously still a lot of anger out there about the tarp program in 2008. host: in houston, texas, our republican line. caller: does anyone really expect the dodd-frank bill to make a positive difference whatsoever? the fcc recently approved the merger between comcast and abc universal.

the mss was responsible for regulating oil rigs in mexico. they signed off on the deep ocean rigs during the dp spill -- the bp spill. tsa -- the tsa failed to follow federal law regarding procedures of implementing a full body stance. -- body scans. do you think these agencies will make any real positive difference? guest: cottas on some of the big fan of the government agencies. that is part of the big debate now. you hear a lot of people,

particularly republicans asking if they did such a bad job before, why should we give them more power and as soon they will do a better job. that is a difficult question to answer. if he cannot have the faith in government, you will not believe they can do a good job. host: we have about 10 minutes till the start of the house. ray, on our independent line. caller: i had heard that part of the problem with the banks was they had sold the mortgages and split them up and resold them and they're out there somewhere. i was wondering if this new bill addresses that? thank you. guest: it does.

what the caller is talking about is a lot of times a bank will originate a mortgage. what they do with selling off. they packaged together and sell it off as a security. this essentially gave banks no incentive to make a good loan because they had no stake in whether or not it was paid back. it's because they sell these mortgages to investors and it becomes their problem. the law says that whenever these mortgages are packaged together in a security, whoever does that packaging has to maintain a 5% stake in those loans. the idea is if you have to hold the stake, you have more of an incentive to make sure these are good loans that will be paid back or you'll take a loss too. host: is a clear process for people getting mortgages now?

guest: guest: one of the things is for them to make the forms more clear. it is more of a wait and see thing. that is one of its major charges is to attempt to make credit cards and mortgage forms so that people can understand it better. host: democrat's line, mickey. caller: is the republicans line? host: this is the democrat's line. caller: i was concerned with how that is right now. host: of what is your question? caller: why can't we make some kind of bonds available for

people so they can pay off their debt? host: leave it there. guest: you can buy treasury bonds. caller: will the new bureau limit the reserve to do that kind of thing? guest: it would not. what they're doing now is overseen banks -- overseeing banks. host: our next caller is larry on the independent line. caller: the rating agency killed us once with the economy we are in right now and they're about ready to kill us again if we do not take care of our current

debt ceiling. the rating agencies need to have something done to correct them. they caused it. they were driving the trucks. they are the ones who made this possible. there are other people who took advantage of the situation, but they are the only ones who raided business isaaa when they -- businesses when they weren't aaa. if just one person responsible had looked at to see what was inside one of those mortgage- backed securities that they called a aaa when really they were ccc, they would have

stopped it. but no one looked into it. guest: obviously the credit rating agencies have been attacked a lot. -- whenalso a lot of you're talking about big banks, they're supposed to do their own due diligence as well. they should not just blindly take with the rating agency says. the ft side of that is that big banks can do their own due diligence -- the flip side of that is big banks can do their own due diligence. span 3,on't forget on c- the senate banking committee.

take a call from charlotte, north carolina. charles, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. there is a video online of 80,003 house banking committee meeting where they're asking for more regulation. -- there is a video online of 2003 house banking committee meeting where they are talking about more regulation. don't you think that the committee has the oversight to keep the financial collapse from happening? guest: the congressional committee is overseen and it is their job to oversee those type

of policies. when people talk about the cause of the financial crisis, and they ask whether or not the government was pushing too many people to own homes on people who were not able to afford it, there is back and forth on whether the government promoted policies for low-income neighborhoods or low-income americans to own homes and whether it was a bad idea. there's a lot of finger-pointing going back and forth on this. congressman frank was not necessarily advocate for them to own homes, some of the issue was rental housing for these people. there is a lot going back and forth. i think if you look back, you find that the current administration and the bush administration was in favor of some of these policies that have now come under fire.

host: democrat's line, mickey. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of wanted to mention that the apple does not fall far from the tree when it comes to chris dodd's that. -- chris dodd's dad. his father was put in jail. i do blame franklin and a dog for what happened with this housing debacle. -- frank and dodd for what happened with this debacle. he got his house. am i right or wrong?