and our spot line on magazines features nick summers of "bloomberg businessweek." >> for all of those who >> for all those who of been affected, we realize you have a long road ahead. enormous grief has to be absorbent, but you will not travel that passed alone. -- enormous grief has to be absorbed. host: president obama pledging support for oklahoma in the wake of the deadly tornado on monday. at least 24 people including nine children were killed. the medical examiner's office says the number was reduced from yesterday after officials said some of the dead were counted twice. clients remain at half staff in

washington with the efforts in oklahoma turning to recovery and what that means for the federal and state governments. we begin this morning with your thoughts and several states response to a disaster. -- flags remain at half staff. for oklahoma residents we have a fourth line, 3883. oryou can send us a tweet, post your comments on facebook or e-mail us. let's begin with the morning papers out of oklahoma, courtesy of the newseum --

and here's the norman transcript out of oklahoma. and this is from the daily news -- the weatherford daily news. and the richmond times dispatch has --

17 miles is how long the tornado was with a with a 1.3 miles. 210 miles an hour. 58 is the number of ef5 tornadoes in the united states since 1950. the miami herald, there headline ir headline -- that's when we turn to all of you. what is your confidence in the federal and state? marlborough,per maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning and thank you for the opportunity. first i want to say i am really

proud of the president and the andnistration reacting acting so quickly on that tragedy in oklahoma. i want to send my prayers and my thoughts to the people there. they are some hearty people out there. i was amazed at their response. i want to also make a point about their senators. both of their senators voted superstormlief for sandy in new jersey. i'd think that is so hypocritical. they are in oklahoma announced, naturally, trying to get federal help for their people and they voted against the people in new jersey. host: both senators sam have responded since that came out.

senator inhofe said this is different, that the sandy bill included pork spending for things not related to superstorm sandy and that's why he voted against it. and you have senator tom coburn, was sent out an e-mail yesterday from his office saying is it is and weo play critic don't know if an emergency aid package will be necessary, but we do know fema has $11.6 billion in its disaster relief fund as of this morning. we don't know if that will be enough." caller: that is so political. i can hardly contain myself. i'me guys know -- and talking about these senators in these red states -- they know that if they can vote against and stopped aid for people in

the northeast, then they can get away with this. the lord is wonderful. the lord showed them that you cannot be a hypocrite like that. those people in new jersey died and just as well as a people no, died. i could care less how much money is in the budget. those people needed help. host: on our facebook page -- t.c. in sterling, virginia, a democrat. caller: yes, ma'am. i have great confidence in the

government to repair disasters and take care of folks. i grew up in central texas in the tornado alley area. some places always get hit by tornadoes. .hat is a waste of our money there was a terrible disaster in 1999. host: what do you think should happen? what can the federal government do? there are headlines in the papers today quoting people from oklahoma saying they will rebuild. caller: my heart goes out to those folks, but we need to have a measured response. there are places to rebuild, and places need recovery, and there are places people should not park their trailer or try to build a subdivision, because that place has a history and it's going to come back to bite them. host: what about housing regulations? there's a story in the new york

times this morning, a full-page story with a big picture of the devastation in moore, oklahoma. it says -- caller: i am fully behind federal regulation especially like the flood plains. i think there was not a whole lot they could have done. anything that is above the ground that gets hit, especially the schools, i am surprised they did not have a higher death toll.

, greatly support regulation at but that is not a local flavor down there, especially in texas. i had a lot of kinfolks that came from lubbock. the people who stayed have storms dollars. that part of life in that area. but i think it is good money to faced to rebuild that talent and hard again in a lot of places. it's a big thing they need to get their hands wrapped around. host: in this new york times piece it says --

there's also a piece in this paper about storm --lters in "usa today" tony in modesto, california, republican. caller: hi. i just wanted to say that those

guys in oklahoma are going through a real tough time right now. all kinds of have all kinds of stuff to say. one thing we are not seeing like we see in new orleans with a bunch of looting and people standing with their hands in the air yelling for somebody else to come save them and all that. you see them working and doing what they need to do. quite a difference. that [indiscernible] barack obama about anything has some serious brain damage. i hope they are as proud of him on his impeachment day as they are right now. host: let's go to david in orlando, florida, independent. and this from the washington times --. go ahead, david. caller: i cannot agree more with the last caller. i have no confidence in fema and

in our government's response to these things, because they are more concerned with buying 2 million rounds of ammunition and controlling us and turning their tierney on us. and with those illegal wars, we thatt so much money on them we could completely redo areas where the tornadoes hit, we could have new construction codes where people have to have basements and they could get government grants for that, where hurricanes hit. there's so much we could do. we have so much technology now where they expect large earthquakes in the west, you can make construction where they have earthquake resistance up to 8.5 on the richter scale. host: you believe there should be regulation for housing? caller: there should be

regulations for housing and take some of that money we are spending on illegal wars and the 2 million rounds of ammunition us,ear about and use it for for the people. --t: on twitter inside the washington post --

people call we will go to james in georgia, a democrat. we will go up to an james. caller: hi. i'm very proud of president obama. the republicans pick up these issues. the deficit is dropping faster than it has in the last 60 years. all of these are just grandstanding issues. they don't want to help the american people, the republicans. delegationhe whole voted against sandy. these people are hateful and racist. this is why they don't want to

help people. they talked this and that, but they get paid. host: what evidence do you have that this is motivated by race? caller: because i'm a black person. i can see racism and feel racism. you cannot. host: are you there? off.ere caught finish your thought. black, so you don't feel racism the way i do. you've not been subjected to these types of feelings. most of these people down here are low to medium income people nd they get more welfare than

any of these states. i see these people every day. they are poor. question. you a they're on welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security. why do these people vote for republicans who believe in cutting these things? it's because of their racial hatred. they grew up in separate but equal. i grew up in a time when they did not want us to go to the same restrooms or restaurant. and i saw theia town on the oprah winfrey show. it shows these people are still alive. they are hateful and racist people. i pray for them that one day god will taint their hearts before they die. host: all right, james. now to rogersville, tennessee, william is republican. caller: i think the president

has done a good job and said he will give them all the help they need in oklahoma. people understand how can sit back and say they are going to start taking money from other things to pay for best. that does not make sense. host: you think it makes sense to cut other programs? caller: no. i am a republican and have always voted republican. i find myself more on the democrat side. tennessee.mon in we have has as many democratic governors as we have republicans. host: all right, william. we will keep taking your phone calls and getting your confidence level in the federal and state response to a disaster. a former fema administrator for

the clinton administration from 1993 to 2001 is joining us on the phone. let's begin with you were there in 1999 when the tornado hit oklahoma. from what you have seen, how does this compare? guest: it's very similar. in 1999 it was an f5 with a top winds of 300 miles an hour. it was 1 mile wide. the same path. just heartbreaking to see the people going through this. host: from your experience, what is the first thing that the people of moore, oklahoma, and the surrounding areas, what do they need? your volunteer organizations come across and cross and the red others, will be there to help with some of the immediate needs. they need to look at how we are going to rebuild. fema is there. and the fema administrator is

there, who does a great job. the director for the state of oklahoma is very tested and very good and they have a good system there. the governor was the lieutenant governor when the event in 1999 happened, so they know what to do. the thing is getting through each day now. people will go through frustration and anger and it's really important to make sure people have the correct information of what is available to them, where they need to call and get the relief going in there as quickly as possible so they can rebuild their lives. host: you say oklahoma has a good process in place. what do you mean by that and how does semo fit into? ? guest: i was there in 1995 with the bombing of the murrah building in oklahoma. all the fire departments and

emergency personnel are very good at what they do. they have been through this many times. oklahomairector of emergency management is out there. he's been there along time and has been through thick and thin. they know what to do and how to handle it. and working with fema. so it will be quite a time over the next few weeks. the best thing everyone can do is help these people to get through these first few days and first few weeks and help them to see that there's light at the end of the tunnel and that they can rebuild their lives. host: so fema is on the ground. what is the function of fema right now? guest: the first thing they did was brought in the search and rescue teams to search for victims. that's very important. the next step will be people are calling in the 1800 number to make applications for individual assistance, individual family grants.

president obama has already declared it a national disaster declaration. some of the first steps of already taken place. as each day goes by, the system gets a little better and faster and smoother. the most important thing is for them to listen to the information provided and to call the 1800 number that fema has set up and make an application. as soon as they get the application in, the faster they get paid. host: once the president signed a disaster declaration, what does that trigger? guest: that triggers all the federal resources available that are needed in oklahoma. host: what are they? guest: everything from the corps fema,gineers to hud to s.p.a., small business administration loans -- sba. all of them available to respond to this event. host: during your tenure as the

fema administrator, you went to see many things, oklahoma city bombing, the tornado there in 1999. what advice do you have for the current administrator craig fugate? guest: he has been through this many times. he is battle tested. he knows what to do and how to respond. the most important thing now is getting the people aged fast. the next most important is getting the debris started to get cleaned up and getting the infrastructure back up such a the water, sewer, gas, and getting the roads cleared. that is his task. in 1999.at there's a huge amount of debris to be removed. the next thing is to start working together with the city's and the federal government and have a long-term

recovery plan and get the recovery process started. that gives people more hope than anything. get it cleaned up and get them started rebuilding. that as part of the knowation side, and i oklahoma is aware of this, but that they look at building very strong-designed safe rooms for schools and hospitals and even individual homes. host: sugarbeet federal regulations on that? you know, in a high risk areas like this, i'm not sure regulation is the key. i think the most important thing is to use some common sense and say this is what is needed and this is what we need to do. host: you talked about removing the debris. the first process of getting people back to recovering and rebuilding, how big a task is that? when you look at the pictures

and the governors saying it is just sticks and bricks as she walks around the city of moore. guest: it is, but the main thing is that all of this debris and all the contaminants in the debris, it is a public health and safety issue. it is very important that it is clean it up quickly and it's very important that it is separated, separate the wood from the steel and hazardous materials from that and that is done properly. i don't know what they will do here, but in the past we have used a lot of staging areas, which i'm sure they have used in the staging areas where they can bring up the big wood chippers and for that to be recycled. it's important also to make sure a lot of homes and buildings, schools and other buildings will have hazardous waste materials

in those buildings. jerseyinally, a new article from you 2012 had the from yo as master of disaster, but since you left fema, you have been called into a disastrous by state governments. have you been contacted by the state of oklahoma or the city of moore? guest: it is a little soon. they're just realizing what has happened. i'm sure we will be talking to them towards the end of the week. still in response mode. host: a private company like yours would go in. why do the state and federal governments reach out to a private company and not do it themselves? guest: a lot of them do not have

the staff available and experience that we have in helping them with other project work orders, our documentation, and making sure that it's right, so they can get reimbursed for their time, material, and wherever they may use in the recovery efforts. and we do. budgets over the last several years have been short. and a lot of people just don't have the public assistance capability or mitigation capability. so we go in and help them in that process. witt, we want to thank you for your time talking to us and giving us your take on the oklahoma tornado. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: from the new jersey article in says witt's firm is paid a fee for their service. in louisiana, but state has paid his company $40 million since

2005 for its work on katrina and three other storms. --iana and iowa paid so that was perspective from a former fema administrator on how this all works. what confidence do you have in federal and state response to a disaster? vincent in statin island, new york. caller: hello. i'm from statin island. we went through superstorm sandy. what the seeing disbursement of funds from the federal government is still taking forever. on senator inhofe and senator coburn, there was way too much pork in that bill that was not necessarily for that to go towards sandy and it should have been offset in the budget, because we don't have money

growing on trees. and we cannot continue this ridiculous spending without trying to pay for it someplace else by cutting the budget. host: this on twitter -- robert is independent in wisconsin. caller: good morning. a couple things. it seems like comparing hurricane katrina into this is ridiculous, because the storms were so different and the impact was so different. at the the guy who tried to comment was being a bigot, because it was mostly black folks in katrina a that were in trouble. this idea that we cannot help people who have been hit by a natural disaster unless we take

it from somewhere else, it seems like if my neighbor was in trouble over there and i have a choice between helping him or watching him live in the street or die or whatever the case might be or go to the bank and borrow some money, i would help my neighbor. i see the tom coburn has a god and that god is money. the whole bunch of people, money is more important to american citizens. i'm all for fiscal responsibility, but there are times you worry about your instead of your an bank account. nobody talked about offsets when we were running around the globe to iraq and afghanistan and messing around all over the planet. nobody's asking for offsets for that. they are hypocrites. host: an update on what happened on capitol hill yesterday. e told you about apple and skirting u.s. taxes, testimony

by its ceo yesterday where he said "if we pay all the taxes we oh, every dollar." that the headline in the financial times this morning. if you missed the hearing, go to our video library on c-span.org. and here's the economy and business section. ireland denies giving apple a special deal to shelter its profits. that's from the washington post. this was all part of the hearing yesterday where the senators scared off with the apple ceo over the tax issue. -- squared off. and this -- abandon the wall street journal this morning, and editorial --

if you missed that hearing, go to our website, c-span.org. and on immigration, it passed out of the senate committee yesterday after about three weeks of marking up the legislation. the vote was 13-5. it should come to the floor is whatossibly in june the reports are from the newspapers this morning it. by late afternoon on tuesday it says senator orrin hatch said that he would support the bill out of committee is not necessarily on the senate floor. so that's getting the support of senator orrin hatch and three other republicans on that committee which included lindsey graham and senator jeff flake and orrin hatch. in the world news section of the financial times, on immigration

reform -- that language is not part of the immigration bill. so here's the headline in the new york times -- again, we covered the marked up in the senate judiciary

committee. so go to, to c-span.org. john in prescott,. arizona,, good morning. ?aller: how are you what is being done in that tornado alley that cannot be done anywhere else? earthquakes might happen every 100 years or 200 years, but those tornadoes happen almost every year. if you don't have the resources to thefor six weeks during tornado season, then you have no business living there. if you love that area of the country more than you love your children and animals, then you get out of there. you know? it is like katrina. why would you want to raise children in an area that is below sea level? if you love your children,

moved. why should the government responsible for rebuilding something that is going to continuously happen? sandy was a freak thing. so this is every year. host: we will take those comments and pass them on to representative tom cole, joining us on the phone right now, republican of oklahoma. this is your home town. you are in moore, oklahoma. describes the city. guest: it's a city of about 55,000 people. it's a small farming community when i moved here in 1960. were about 1500 people. very hard-working, incredibly decent people, pretty dynamic community. it has been going through a lot of growth. it's a wonderful place to live and wonderful place to raise a family.

some resilience people. host: the twister that the leader over 40 minutes is said to have been 600 times bigger than hiroshima. devastating. i have lived in this town 53 years. i know evarts street like the back of my hand. some of these areas you can walk through and get disoriented. we had the tragic loss of the lives of some children and teachers. i have been there dozens of times over the years. it's a polling place. i was a groundskeeper in the local school system when i was much younger. it's a place i know pretty well. i could not recognize it. i did not know where i was if you looked at the wreckage around. the places where the tornado hit the strongest, the damage is almost unearthly. what have you learned

since monday? what do the people need first from the state government and also from the federal government? guest: the first thing we ask for is your prayers, if you are so inclined. after that, there's the immediate help. people like the salvation army and the red cross, those kind of folks do a wonderful job in these situations. we already have a tremendous local response. we have awfully good first responders year. the communities around us in oklahoma city and midwest city. they are pouring resources and people in to help. our governor, you could not have anybody better. she had been the lieutenant governor during the oklahoma city bombing. she knows what she is doing and is always working with the legislature to allow resources

from the state for any funds needed. as far as the federal response, it is in first grade. i talked to the president two nights ago and secretary napolitano. she will be here this afternoon for a store -- a tour. we have got a very robust, excellent federal response. been exporting energy out here for 100 years to all parts of the country and we still do. it's one of the big oil and gas places of america. it exports cattle and wheat. we have the best football team in america. beyond that, it is an incredibly productive place. people live here because they love it. i voted for sandy relief, by the way. we spend more money on sandy and

katrina than we have all the tornadoes combined. .he destruction is worse this is a disaster area that is 1 miles long and between and 1.25 miles wide. it is visually overwhelming and it is very difficult to see when you on the ground, but it's not state after state. i'm happy to step up and help other americans in katrina and sandy. i voted for those. i am proud to do it. that's what americans do. other americans have certainly helped us. this is home. we don't intend to move away. tos is the place we intend raise our kids and not take them somewhere else. host: congressman, there are headlines quoting people from oklahoma saying we will rebuild. if they do, should there be federal regulation, state

regulation, local regulation that says you must have a safe house or you must rebuild with certain materials? an article in the new york times this morning said many of the homes in the town were built the same way they were pretty much pre-1999 tornado? isst: the area in the city most of the new homes -- the area that got hit was most of the older homes. but the new homes to have stronger construction. the legislature is thinking about that right now in terms of assistance. this is a community that prides itself in the school system. so i have no doubt there will be some discussion about upgrading the schools. if you looked at the houses are aboveen you ground, if you have any structure above ground and you almost 300 which is

miles an hour winds, there's not a lot that can withstand that. not nearly the scope and size of a hurricane, which can devastate. but at the point of attack of a tornado is when it's much greater than a hurricane. of those things where we had a lot of people? in the wrong place at the wrong time. they did the right thing. we had good warnings and evacuation's and great first responders. sometimes when mother nature comes, the idea you can anticipate and overcome everything at the moment, it's just not so. so you work through it as best you can and move on from there and start your life over. people here are used to doing that. host: should this money for oklahoma include offsets? guest: it's early to tell. this might be on the scale and

size of sandy. we may well have the money available. i think you should always be prudent. at the end of the day, we had votes on offsets where sandy relief was concerned, but they did not pass. i'm all for helping people when a disaster happens. whether it is in new york or florida, i'm not happy to vote for the people on the ground. that's what you do for your fellow americans. i have seen it happen on 9/11 and in the oklahoma city bombing and repeatedly in these terrific acts of nature that are liable to fall on a part of the country. i will never before denying an american relief in need at the time of extreme need. the feds.work with we will not get caught up in a big political controversy. i'm here on a bipartisan basis. after that, if we can find a better way to do it, that's fine. but right now help is required

and i've no doubt it will be forthcoming. host: representative tom cole serves on the appropriations and budget committee. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: this on twitter -- from last night, cbs news is reformist -- reported former congressman anthony weiner, democrat of new york, is running for new york city mayor. here's what she said in a video put out by himself yesterday. [video clip] >> in congress i got a billion dollars to put more cops on the beat and give the 6 9/11 first responder is the help they deserve, and led a campaign for real health insurance regular people can afford. we can make a difference if we are willing to fight for it. if i made big mistakes and i

know i let people down. but i learned tough lessons. i'm running for mayor because i have been fighting for a middle- class of my entire life. i hope i get a second chance to work for you. host: the former congressman anthony weiner running for new york city mayor. back to our question for all of you. your confidence level in federal and state response to a disaster. dave is on the air. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks for taking my call. a lot of what is going on in oklahoma right now is sad, but the truth is when this happened in 1999 a lot of the folks that were affected by the incident this past weekend should have had the foresight to either rebuild with the grant programs we have in place that former director witt was talking about the hazardous mitigation grant program that helps reinforce and

stabilize the buildings they are constructing a little better. ofm a little sad that a lot the folks did not take the opportunity in 1999 to realize fortifications were necessary after that time frame. our country seems a lot these days that it is geared more toward response than preparing. --t: "usa today" has this story goes to other areas impacted by tornadoes. includes numbers on joplin, missouri --

so to give you an idea of rebuilding efforts two years after the tornado in missouri. also, this is a headline in the washington post -- our conversation about the confidence in several states -- federal and state response to a disaster. we turn our attention to capitol hill, the hearings regarding the irs targeted conservative groups. we will talk with congressman mark meadows. later, a discussion about the keystone xl pipeline, a vote on that in the house. we will talk with natural resources defense council about that. "washington journawe will be ri.

[video clip] >> in 1948 we have an unusual and remarkable situation here. andenly cold is discovered the reason why cantonese was a marked the first to hear about it is that there were already some chinese here. news spread back to southern china and in a flash of thousands of men began to board ships to head for the gold mountain, which california was known as then. there are tales in the first year of men walking through a field looking for gold nuggets and filling their pockets with gold nuggets. they found -- sound extreme and fabulous, but since nobody was looking for it nobody saw it. when they began looking for it, they found it in abundance. very quickly that surface gold was all taken up.

we believe 120,000 people showed up in one year right here. in 1949 this was the situation. if you look at this photograph you will see from the shoreline looking out that the bay is completely filled with ships. there's a forest of ships. becauseips were there the passengers caught off to look for gold and then the sailors got off to look for gold, abandoning the ships. then the argument began. who has a right to mine the gold? because california was an american territory, the americans argue on the americans have the right. so they began to push out to everyone else, that included the chileans, the mexicans, the russians, anybody who was not american. of course the chinese are among those being pushed out. >> from chinatown in san francisco, looking at the chinese immigration experience,. part two.

on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with congressman mark meadows, republican of north carolina. here's the headline in the wall street journal -- lois lerner says she will plead the fifth today. guest: right. we are hopeful that as we see her come before us that she will change her mind. as i see it, we need patriots to step forward. the american people deserve the truest. we are hopeful we will get to that this morning. -- the american people deserve the truth. theve been poring over inspector general's report for

days now try to understand what went on. we are very hopeful we will get to the truth of the matter and the american people deserve that. i am hopeful she will change her mind. obviously, we will have other witnesses this morning that will testify as well. host: the chairman of the committee says he will still have her come before the committee. her lawyer was quoted in the new york post saying she is not committed any crime or made any that sherepresentation but has no choice but to take this course. he bent on to say -- guest: certainly we're not wanting to embarrass anyone. again, we want to get to the truth. i know that german ei -- chairman darrell issa has a constitutional responsibility as we all have for oversight. if was intimately involved, you read the inspector general's

report, a number of times it seems to have her at the center of a number of these decisions that were made. if if there's no criminal wrongdoing, then obviously invoking the fifth is not something any of us should do. it's time for us as patriots to be able to come forward, share what we know, and understand that as we become more transparent, then ultimately what will happen is we will get a more accountable and efficient government. host: what questions would you like to ask her? guest: who knew what when and is there a cover-up? i am very concerned about one particular aspect. tea partyese cases cases. then all of a sudden midway through in 2011 we stopped calling them tea party cases and we started calling them advocacy cases. why would you change the name of what we called them without its any real systemic difference if

we were not trying deemphasize what we were looking at? host: so what happens at today's hearing? she pleaded the fifth. how does this go down? guest: if you look at the time line going back to february of 2010 and march of 2010, these ands were pulled out identified. and then a new criteria. we know that from documentation and new criteria was established to evaluate just these cases. we want equal protection under lot. whe -- under the law. whether i am a liberal or conservative, the same criteria apply on whether if i qualify for a particular deduction. so we pulled that out with a specific emphasis and set the new criteria, that is grossly unfair and something none of us would stand for. host: could the admission of the

tea party have led to this? the tea party is said we are not a washington group, we don't have a national leader, we are grass roots to, therefore you chapters poppel all over the country and each one had to apply for their 501 status.4 -- guest: it's a false premise to indicate that liberal groups are not the grass roots and only conservative groups are grass- roots. but i understand the emphasis. that is really why we need standards for protection. if you have moms and dads establishing tea party groups across the country, there needs to be a standard that we can all count on. so when you start to look at the standard changing, whether it is in my home state of north carolina or whether it is in

california, we have to have a standard that you can go to. every other document we would have with the irs there are guidelines and standards you can count on. and yet this was a moving goalpost. you may or may not qualify. when we go to our government we should expect equal treatment. that is obviously what we did not see here. host: we are going to cover today's hearing where lois lerner and others will testify. she will be pleading the fifth. live coverage today on c-span3 of the house oversight and government reform committee on irs targeted conservative groups, and 9:30 a.m. eastern time. our guest served on that committee. yesterday the senate finance committee had their own hearing. the headline in the washington times --

i want to show you what he had to say when the ranking republican senator orrin hatch pressed him on why he did not alert senators to the problem sooner. [video clip] >> why have you not come forward before today to correct the record and smallest that there was inappropriate screening occurring in the irs, the organization you headed? me answer a few things. one is the full set of facts around these circumstances came out last week in the report which i read. until then i did not have the full set of facts. >> but you knew this was going on. why did you not to let us know because that's what we were inquiring about 20 cents the letters? >> what i knew was not the full set of facts in this report. oft i knew sometime in the i 2012 -- what i knew some time in

the spring of 2012 was that there was a list being used. i knew that the word tea party was on the list. i did not know what other words or on the list. i did not know the scope and severity of this. i did not know the group's pulled in work groups that would have been pulled in any way. what i thought at the time and what i think now is proper steps when the concerns brought to the commissioner of the internal revenue service, which is make sure that the matter is being looked at by the inspector general. host: congressman mark meadows, your reaction to his answers? guest: they are evasive. obviously, it shows either an incredible lack of curiosity or an abdication of his position that he was elected and paid to do. so when you have that kind of questioning, i don't think it went over well with the senators. it did not go over well with me. i know it did not go over well

with a lot of the american people. if you are being paid to do a job, whose responsibility is it? to his point, he seems to to advocate it and say it was the inspector general's position. but that's not what he is paid to do. this is an america that continues to go on. you find over and over again we are saying the political appointees have nothing to do with it, we were not in the decision making, it was not our responsibility. and they blame lower-level employees for the decisions. if they are going to continue to do that, why have political appointees? why pay them if they're not point be responsible in making those decisions? it is offensive. host: douglas film and will testify today before your committee along with louis learner. woolen/sell ge

what are your top questions for douglas shulman and the others? guest: we will look at different areas. you have five minutes apiece to do it. we have a number of folks on the committee across the board that have been looking into this. att of mine, i have looked the number of issues. with regard to him one particular thing is he has testified before, before the ways and means in march of 2012. he said that at -- he gave assurances that nothing was going on. he just admitted on that video that he found out in the spring of 2012 -- when he found out that he had given false testimony, why did he not tell somebody. and how angry did get? who got fired because he was giving this false testimony to congress?

is he going to blame someone else for not giving him the truth? host: this on twitter -- guest: we all expect the irs to treat us fairly and equally. what we are seeing in this and with this particular comment is that we are concerned that when we don't get treated fairly, what we've got to do is find a system that we can all depend on. but not only that we depend on, what happens is if we feel like we are target, but every time a turnaround will say is that fair or not? the power is so unbelievably large in this, it has gotten too big. so now we will give them the power over our health care? it is oneomething --

thing been your wallets and another to be your health care. i am concerned about that. host: this on twitter -- guest: great question. when you look at the time line, and i have gone over it five times in full-length. what we have to over it five times in length. this was an audit, not an investigation. the other truth that i think will come out today is that there has been some indication that this has all been simply in the cincinnati area. most of these decisions were happening in washington, d.c. thing that will hopefully come out today is that this is not the only investigation. the irs did their own investigation. that is a narrative that has not

been picked up. they did their own investigation. they knew what happened back in the early parts of cantwell, yet they keep referring to the inspector general, the top people knew. then instructed the assistant to the sarah hall position to do an investigation. went and actually traveled from washington, d.c., traveling to cincinnati. they did an investigation to find the findings that were there, and forming not only mr. miller, but we also know from testimony that others were informed in the spring of 2012.

when it is a 14 month delay we can do better than that. host: did mr. miller live? lie them of he has denied this twice. guest: when you are coached a , we have had a number of times where he did not know that there were things where he was not forthcoming. i think that has come out in a number of hearings already. to say that he lied? it depends on the question. you have to compare it to whatever he actually knew.

to bob,t's go republican line. but -- caller: give them immunity, anyone in the irs the testifies as to where these started. have to be perry mason to figure it out. the aisle are afraid they may be next. i guarantee it will never happen again. host: thank you. you are a fan of perry mason, as i am. i yelled back many years watching perry mason, i appreciate you calling in this morning.

it is not about politics, it is about people. in these uncertain times a decision was not even made. they did not have the right to appeal. essentially we put them on hold for more than the year. some of them more than three years. so, we are just not going to make a decision. we need to get to the bottom of it. i believe that there are some

patriots out there working with the irs who are going to come forward to share information. they already have. host: were these actions inappropriate or illegal? highlyat best they were inappropriate and unethical. when you start to look at equal protection under the law, if we are not having equal protection, that becomes something that is not legal and when it becomes specifically targeted with a purpose, we know that that is something that we cannot tolerate. host: go ahead. hopeful and i believe the we will do is not yield until we get to the bottom of this. his: mark meadows, serving first term as a memo -- member of the irs committee.

mark, philadelphia, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i think that what we need to get here here -- get to here is what is really going on, a blatant attack by the republicans on obama care. let's face it. get away from this kangaroo court between the senate and house, they have cut the irs funding by $1 billion for the past three years. this is all about the funding obama care what of the land. that is what this is about. as far as patriots coming forward? you do not want patriots, you want fall guys. host: let's get a response. guest: i appreciate you bringing it forward.

obviously i have a concern about obama care and what happens with that organization, but this is much larger than obama care or anything else. this is truly about the integrity of one of the largest agencies in the country. they did not do their job. 98% of these applications did not get processed. there is a statutory requirement that says that if you do not do that i and 270 days, you have the right to sue the government for the decision. 98% of those cases were not going. we can do better than that and it has nothing to do with the affordable care act, although i do have a concern in taking someone who is not doing well in one area and putting them over something else.

roy, good morning. caller: why not let the veterans sue you for not getting their own obligations? that ithat is something have addressed personally. i think that what the caller is talking about is that we have disability claims for our men and women who have served. it is a tragedy and something that we cannot stand for. i am willing to volunteer time. what we have seen in my particular area is that it has gone up and the average nationwide is 300 days and in my area it is approaching 600 days and that is inexcusable for the men and women who served and shows a systemic problem, a government that is too large to process what they are hired and paid to do. we have got to shoe line the process.

i have more retired military folks in my district in north carolina than any of the other congressional districts in my state and it is something that is highlighted literally on a daily basis. in addition to that i know that a number of my other colleagues were trying to find an answer to solve that. host: steve, republican caller. caller: reluctant republican. notit occurred to you that one soul in the irs has suffered and the consequences? have told congress that they are in charge and you can drop dead? and as far as obama care, why would you be in favor of not funding the irs to enforce obama care? it is just fruit that they are

not fit to do it. guest: i will answer the second question first. in terms of funding, you will not see any additional funding that goes forward coming out of the house to support that. additional funding, you cannot see a, but when it was passed -- see it, but there were additional funding mechanisms that would have to be repealed to stop that? that is one of the things that in terms of funding going forward you have to almost complete the do away with the funding of the irs and other agencies and there are other tangential problems with that. specifically we all see that. the other part of that is that

people should lose their jobs. people back home say that not only should they lose their job, but they should go to jail. when we have this kind of thing going on, we have to hold them accountable. we have been looking to see if anyone has been terminated or fired because of this other than the two announced retirements here recently at the very top level. we cannot find any. in fact, just the opposite. people were paid bonuses, a number of perks were given and that is troubling to me. >> i want to get sure thought from the front page story of a washington post this morning. david petraeus, at the heart of the benghazi dispute.

"they asked to host: will the committee be investigating the role of david petraeus in this? guest: the chairman has been very clear on that issue, we

will be investigating everyone when it comes to benghazi. we have to continue to bring in everyone and ask them the truth. from the national security point of view, we need to make sure that those classified documents state classified and do not get shared, but there is so much out there that is in an unclassified version that would give you pause. who gave the order? hasadministration right now the ability to say, listen, these people made the decision not to give clearance. really, this is something they could come forward with today. host: talking about talking points the article goes on to say that the only government entity that did not object was the white house, which played the role of mediator --

guest: which is why we know it is not a national security issue. when you have people objecting on are on new administration were cia talking points very telling. but they were facts that were known. fax the find out other places. the false narrative that was put narrativereally in that ultimately deceive the american people. host: has the committee spoken to david petraeus about this? guest: i am not aware of any direct talks with david petraeus at this point. the chairman continues to reach out to additional sources as we continue to get additional information from other people.

if it is an ongoing investigation the chairman has told me numerous times that we are going to get to the bottom of this because the american people deserve it. host: from twitter, back to the irs -- guest: a great question. i think it calls for overall tax reform. that came out of the ways and means committee the other day. this is an example of picking winners and losers. it is not just the tax-exempt status. when we look at special deals with this group or that group, when we reform the tax code we will seethis is an economy thatl continue to do much better than when we pick certain sectors here and there. i would agree with you that if we have it and it is the law of the land that it must be done on

a fair and equal basis across the board. we cannot single out a group on religious or political persuasions. it is the fabric of who we are. it is what makes america great and different. we really are a nation who should be treating everyone equally. our constitution calls for it. host: john, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i am wondering if people like karl rove, who got tax exemptions for their organizations, and these commissioners were holdovers from the bush a administration and had a secret agenda to derail in order to kill obama care. thank you. guest: greetings to you there in florida. there was not an agenda -- here

is the reason we know that there is not an agenda. these recisions made by the irs. they were not made by carlo loan or an outside group, they were made by employees within the irs over and over again. when we go back to 2010 and you have all of this coming up where the decisions were consistently made to target these groups and then not make the decision on status, eventually we, by not acting, made the decision. liesy, the responsibility with the irs and not any outside group, be it a conservative or liberal. host: this from twitter -- guest: great question. i have been asked that a number of times. there are two different areas.

really the oversight and government reform committee has minimal legislative responsibility. it is almost like a special investigative arm of the house. that is what they are tasked to do. in addition to do that -- in addition to that there are parallel tracks. whether it be tax reform on ways and means, i do not see a holding of any legislation. just because different committees have different assignments, allowing us to focus and concentrate on those areas. >> the immigration bill yesterday, if a version of that comes to the house floor, are you a yes vote? guest: we have three areas that are important to us. we need to make sure that we protect our borders. we have a group of learned and

capable people working on it in the house. they have listened to my constituents back home. i have shared information from farmers on guest worker programs that are critical. themnly have i given information, but we have a dialogue with some of those members and i am hopeful to see something definitive come out of that. amnesty is not something that will be supported by my voters back home. if that is something with an amnesty component, i cannot vote for it because my voters say so. host: the judiciary committee next month, with what the washington times reports, "moving on a separate track, bipartisan negotiators striking a separate deal, but republicans are writing piecemeal bills and

sending them through the process. wednesday they will subject the , sayingill to scrutiny that the key question is if the bill can avoid the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty bill, which failed to secure the borders or crack down on businesses that hire legal immigrants. back to the phones, alan. caller: this whole thing is kind of politicized. i think that stressing this one office creating these violations was not some great big conspiracy that the president was aware of. since all of this is going on with benghazi, we have no gun control.

no longer in the press. that is all i can say. guest: thank you for your comments this morning. when we truly look at the administration, for me and for many members of the committee this is not about blaming the president, itno is about getting an irs that is accountable to the people and truly does the job they are being paid to do. when you come back to the, really the most important thing is making sure that we do not politicize it. that is what makes this investigation even more critical. we have a group within the irs that has made it political based on the tea party. it is political and we will not stand that from the irs or the top down, but it is not about blaming the president as much as it is trying to make sure the we get an irs that is accountable to the people of the country. host: michael johnson --

ohio, your up next. do not think of this is a republican thing or democrat thing. , thepolitical parties people was losing confidence in the government. like, the irs collects money for the fed banking society. whether youatter was patriot, a tea bag, or we the people. they was all for the constitution. the fed was having trouble with .hem hung

the fed has control over the irs. i think that this whole thing would have been like it is now. host: i appreciate your comments. this is not a republican or democrat thing. we were not born republican, independent, unaffiliated, or democrats, this is an american issue, the very foundation. what we look at our country, and the bill of rights, which was really designed to make sure we were protected, we wanted a limited government that would protect rights of american citizens, which is what we have to do. , this in a bipartisan way. come at this in a bipartisan way.

host: doug on twitter -- guest: i do not think that he is afraid to take public testimony. things we found in a number of hearings is that you appear before the television and are asking a certain questions it does not allow you to truly get to the truth of it. having some of those questions asked on an individual basis not in the public eye allows you to ask follow-up questions. we have seen it with a number of hearings already. sometimes the questions do not get answered when you ask them. following up to have them come

in at a later time would certainly be appropriate. host: who participates in the deposition? are all members welcome? really we have trained staff. i cannot say enough about the staff of the oversight and government reform committee in terms of their abilities and thoroughness. i can tell you that this particular hearing this morning, i am prepared because they have been prepared. truly, i cannot say anything bad about it. what happens is they get involved on a limited basis. our committee is very large. functionally i do not think that that would work. they are very good to follow up. host: the hearing being referenced is at 9:30 a.m. this morning, we will have live coverage of the house oversight

and government reform committee looking into the targeting of conservative groups, including the man who is going to plead the fifth, as many of you may have learned. from treasury,ig he looked into the actions of the irs. jim sends this -- . guest: hopefully she will only refuse those that her lawyer would deem criminal. there is a lot did he can bring to the table with -- by clarifying some of the things the irs is being accused of in terms of targeting what happened and what did not.

there were a number of people, her attorney will be giving counsel and a few hours. we will see the answer. >> pleading the fifth, how she able to do that as a government employee? guest: it is one of the great things about our constitutional protections. we cannot incriminate ourselves when it comes to criminal acts. as a government employee she should not be held to any different standard. that is the problem with the irs, that when you start to highlight and treat certain groups differently instead of -- and set up different criteria, we cannot do it. we should not do it for her and not to live for others. >> this message --

guest: that is the ironic thing. if taxpayers answer those questions the same way, not only would they be audited, they would probably be held for fines and criminal activity. it is an oxymoron and thecritical when you say will hold taxpayers to a certain aandard on how to respond number of times it should have been done but we did put responses on many people very quickly when we finally made determination. but it to us a year for the letters to request additional in formation. in one lastget phone call. elizabeth, democratic line. guest: how are you? host: good. there is data out there

that shows that they were eventually okayed to get their status. why have you not brought that up? guest: some of them are still waiting to be approved. lack of decision, yes or no, inhibited their ability to conduct business. 270 days, no at decision was made. it did not even give them the right to a turndown of application, they were simply held in limbo. with theseing applications now. host: this is from "the washington times."

host: are you in agreement that the rebels should be armed in some sort of way? guest: i do know that we have over 70,000 people have been killed under this regime. it is a very complex issue. i have spoken many people around the board. i know that for the security of israel we have to be unflinching and ran -- in support.

as bombs were going off in damascus, shortly after the cease-fire, it was an unbelievably difficult situation that is now spilling over into jordan, turkey. we have to find an answer. there is no simple solution. small arms is one that toategically is difficult come back at us. host: is that a yes? guest: here is what it is, i am not in the decision making process. i do believe that we have to have an overall strategy that does that. a simple yes in the senate would be inappropriate. host: another headline, some of the law and burial pictures are to remain a secret.

reid -- the court decided that release of the images could prove to be too risky to american lives. be voting in the house? guest: i am for it. it is time that we do it, put 42,000 people to work, bring in 800,000 barrels of oil per day. lessen dependence on middle eastern oil and deal with a friend to the north while hopefully lowering prices of the comp. minimal, minimalists. minimal risks. host: all right, congressman mark meadows, republican of north carolina, thank you for coming on. guest: it has been a pleasure. host: we will get an opposing

view on the xl pipeline coming up next. later the magazine so -- series continues with the coverage on j.p. morgan chase. the shareholders just yesterday voted to keep him on in his tool role. but first a news update from c- span radio. >> more of an update from syria, john kerry is in jordan to meet with top diplomats. part of the u.s. and russian effort to end of the syrian civil war. they want to bring together the talkition government to about a new transitional 40.

five men are under round-the- clock surveillance in libya. officials said of the white house believes there is enough proof to seize the five terrorists suspects but that they prefer to wait until investigators have enough evidence to try them in a civilian court room. nbc news is tweaking that a man who was fatally shot yesterday in florida knew of one of the suspects in the boston marathon one ofs, according to his friends. killed by fbi agents after when he returned he found out that his friend had been shot, leading him to say that the fbi knew what happened. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> of all of your experiences

none is more meaningful than the education you have received here. education is transformational. it literally changes lives. that is why people work so hard to become educated. why education has always been the key to the american dream. arbitrary divisions between race, class, and culture. kennedy once said, we do not all of equal talent, but we should all of equal opportunities to develop our talents. every spring, c-span visits campuses and for the next few weeks you will hear advice for new graduating class is. this weekend, members of congress, including ted cruz and l. franken. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are back with susan casey-lefkowitz, international program director for the national resources defense council. we just heard from the congressman, a republican. he is a co-sponsor and he plans to vote yes. how much opposition will there be? guest: i think that there will be a fair amount. they are going to the proper process as to whether this is in the national environmental interests. of what congress is trying to do is essentially allow a foreign to bypass laws that american companies have to

follow by going ahead and giving it approval in congress. an odd thing to do at a time when the ministration was going through all the stuff that every other pipeline had to go through before it would get approved or denied. host: the bill would eliminate the need for the trans canada corp. to get a permit from the president to complete the project, giving congress the right to approve it. the obama administration threatened a veto of that because of the elimination of that cross border permit. but there have been groups, environmental groups, legal groups who have expressed criticism to the president that he is dragging his feet on this. do you share that criticism? interesting, this pipeline would bring some of the dirtiest of oil in the world to the coast, really it is for export. and it was first proposed it went through the environmental

review process and was actually rejected. the client proposal being was made years ago. many things have changed since then. we will need to make sure that if we have a pipeline like this that it is in our national interest. having looked at this program for a long time, i can tell you that it is not in our economic or security interests. this is not a pipeline that we need when we have better energy choices. that --hat evidence is host: what evidence is there that is to the contrary of what our guest just said growing environmental impact? is -- this comes from a substance that is remind.

it is a lot like mountain top removal. much mores out is carbon intensive, causing more .reenhouse gas initiatives the other thing is the types of oil that are more likely to leak. once they do, they crossed offer, a sense -- with fresh water in the heartland, the kinds of risks that we do not want to take. spills already seen oil and climate change. why we should build another pipeline at this point that only makes things worse is something that many people across the united states are really questioning. host: the congressman said 8,000 barrels per day could lower gas prices.

guest: it will indeed be carry a thousand barrels per day from canada, but ironically this pipeline might raise oil prices in the united states. but the oil industry wants with this pipeline is to bring tarzans to deep water ports for higher prices, meaning that the price of oil would go up. have for the economic arguments as well, including small businesses needing the most to help with rising energy prices. forbes says why president obama will say yes is because it is out of the gate and trans-canada is moving forward.

guest: the part that is being built is the southern part, taking oil from oklahoma down to the gulf coast. the president is pressuring as to whether it would bring more from canada. a pipeline that would bring about 35 permanent jobs, those of the calculations done by the state department, just under 4000 construction jobs, but we can get those in the united states through clean energy. host: that forbes article says that the pipeline is nearly 70% complete and carrying crude to america every day. guest: there was one bilks years ago, another reason why we do not need an additional one.

we already get a fair amount of tar sands oil from canada. an additional pipeline is not about bringing tar sands oil to the united states, it is about bringing it to a deepwater port where it can go overseas to an international market. from "the los angeles times," "state department says minimal environmental impact." this may increase the chances that the president approves the pipeline. then you have this story, " theanizing for america," " white house, getting people behind the agenda, yet to say anything. -- givet give you cause you pause?

guest: what is interesting is that the environmental protection agency did comments saying that the state of harmony needed to go back to the drawing board. there were not looking at the and were not looking at the impacts on the health of communities around refineries, especially the gulf coast area. there is a lot more work that the state department has to do before and to do the review that is the road that they promised the american people. that: wenner you hearing -- host: when are you hearing that a decision might be made? guest other still needs to be a national interest determination process. it usually takes about nine days. i would say late summer, early fall.

host: this from matthew -- guest: it is interesting, that is what we used to do, importing refined products from canada, but canada has sort of reached capacity and rather than build new refineries in canada, they chose to use u.s. refineries to go to the next step. canada not just send this out to the east coast? people in canada are also saying no to the pipeline. they have the same concerns that we have. and on the impact of climate change from expansion. barry, democratic caller?

host: barry, democratic caller? guest: i strongly believe it should be approved. i used to fill conflicted. to hear this lady say that it is a national security issue? the national security issue is to get it from the middle east, not our democratic neighbor of north. throwing in the idea that it is a climate change issue or that there are oils filibuster those , it seems that these organizations are coming up with every possible argument to delay at. this has been delayed for years. we know that the epa, having recently lost its director, has found every cost way to try to remove this from public discussion.

guest: your concerns are very real concern for all of us. the way we will deal with national security needs is by reducing the use of oil. we have made great strides there. americans are actually using less oil than they were years ago. cars can now run on less oil, but we need to do more and have cleaner options then tar sands oil. this oil that drives climate change, this is not the kind of oil that we need to continue expanding to meet energy and security needs. and host: we are here with susan casey-lefkowitz, and a vote on the pipeline will take place in the house today. looks like with republican support it will pass, and likely

to be taken up in the senate. joseph ramirez says -- we oftenteresting, hear about that oil coming out of the ground regardless. is truth is that keystone xl seen as industry experts in canada as necessary for the expansion of the tar sands. this pipeline is critical as a main driver of expansion. way to gets no other the oil out to the international markets that the oil industry wants to reach. that onck echoes twitter --

guest: stand -- host of stand, republican line. that the really wish liberals would leave alone america and quit oppressing our and a barrel of oil it that is burned it is burned. it does not matter if it is us or them. the guy before me said a lot, you should answer more of his questions. guest: that is one of the things to work, lot. clean energy problem -- solutions, but one thing we have

to be aware of is that we have better options than continued expansion of dirtier and riskier forms of oil. that is really what this debate is about. in a world where we're seeing the damage of climate change and a high cost of dealing with are we going to really see a move towards clean energy. host: next caller. caller: we ought to build a refinery up north in north dakota or somewhere like that. nice state of the art facility that is clean as possible. the idea is to work on it.

those oldut refineries, like louisiana. a thousand miles would build one refinery. host: this message -- guest: when we look at the we seety in the midwest, haag that they want to have the tar sands go to the gulf coast so that they can export it. they are really after reaching international markets. is a headline from february from "the new york times" on the international front. it says that he risks causing a

,eep, lasting rift with canada that it could bring retaliation. guest: when you look at the canadian provinces, a lot of them are real leaders. is not the there is such a uniform opinion. there are a lot of concerns from the aboriginal communities. working so hard to build clean single i do not think a pipeline will damage our relationship. message being sent to canada is let's work together on clean energy. we share a strong energy structure, we could be world leaders in showing how to beat

climate change. host: pine ridge, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. interesting topic. withld say let canada deal its own stuff. we do not even know how to clean it. it crossing our country. it seems more likely to me than anything else that makes sense. in a much better place than we are today. thank you for c-span. it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

that what about that, and we should be farther along than we are? guest: we do have a lot of options in terms of clean energy. to be moving more rapidly. when we look at things like building our cities smarter, making the best use of interesting types of fuels, this is really about how we move around. there are ways that we can build our cities and structure our systems so that people can have all the things they need in terms of getting their kids to school, getting to the soccer ite, getting to work, doing with cleaner energy. host: does the president gets some blame for not being farther along?

guest: it is interesting, this administration has already made huge steps forward and it is a major reason why we have this use of while in the united states. to doingin addition things like moving with to efficiency standards, we need to say no to dirty energy standards. in these kinds of damages that are being racked up from the violent storms, to fight climate 30nge we need to say no to energy projects. at the same time we are moving forward aggressively with pollution from power plants and fuel efficiency standards with better chance rotation. host: jim, tenn., republican caller. caller: those are not

environmental groups, they are part of the democratic party. after the losses by the democrats, these groups formed not to help the environment or the people, but to be republicans. for example, oklahoma. single county was won by romney and lost by obama because energy prices are high and people are prosperous, democrats lose. these people are not interested in the environment or anything else, they are interested in advancing the left-wing agenda, which means loss of jobs. those people are these with thistalists huge, overstaffed government.

if that national resources defense council -- i would be surprised, and that is true for planned parenthood and 80%, 90% of these special interest groups. host: we have your point. susan casey-lefkowitz? guest: if anything should be an environmental issue, it is health. the need to fight climate change. this is about the future for all of us. natural resources defense council we work hard to try to find solutions for the needs of anyone -- everyone. host: susan casey-lefkowitz is the program director for the natural resources council.

democratic caller. was born in canada, i know the oil patches. i know that there is a new one of opening up that is relatively clean. how a new congressman has worked for a few months in montana and he does not know anything about where it is. you cannot cross the border in the constitution. what part of the budget is he getting? and he is on television now. we have one congressman from the house and montana, of course,

from the little population. guest: i think that part of the concern you may be raising is that one thing we are starting to see, not only with something like keystone xl, crossing the ,ellowstone river not long ago we are also starting to see shale oil found in a lot of places and the big thing need to is ourselves across america what kind of future do we want for ourselves or our children? is this something where we bear the risks of oil pipelines? of oilfferent types development? or do we have better choices for cleaner energy?

that is something that we are working very hard with partners around the world to try to make sure it gets in place. foro have these voices cleaner energy. host: nancy, maine, republican line. caller: how're you doing? i just want to make a couple points here. northern maine and i like to be warm in the winter. and i am very poor. runsnot afford a car that of electricity. another thing, the solar panels, how could you put a solar panel and your home without money? those are expensive. you are going to put solar panels on everyone's house? who is appointed to that? who is one to put them on? we just had a big tornado in oklahoma. do you not think that windmills

and solar panels will be torn off and something like that comes through? it is not going to be any different. you are trying to make clean air, but that is not what is happening here. the windmills and solar panels will be troublesome for any of -- i think you're very right that making sure everyone has access to energy. it will continue to be important in the future. we need to make sure that energy is affordable, so that people can be warm in the winter and get where they need to be. these things are just as possible with a clean energy as they are with our current energy system. i have a lot of faith in american ingenuity. i think that we can build systems in america that make energy accessible and affordable for all people without damaging our health and our climate in the way the current forms often do. host: this on twitter --

the canadian oil basically would be a mind and drilled from under the forest by every major oil company in the world. shell, exxonmobil, conocophillips. these companies when they get to export the oil, it goes out on the gold market prepared for they want to send it. the tar sands oil is going to essentially, under the same type of global oil system as exists for all other types of oil. right now it is landlocked. pretty much right now is going to canadian markets and to the u.s. and in the u.s. it's mostly in the midwest and some in the rockies. that's one reason why if the keystone xl pipeline gets built

in the u.s., oil prices will increase, because you will have less oil in the u.s. midwest and more in goods international markets. host: the oil that will be pumped through the pipeline, what companies, who are the players? guest: talking about all the major oil companies. transcanada would get its oil from whoever wishes to use its sandsfrom the tar and then would go to major refineries along the gulf coast. host: could the states that the pipeline goes transcanada for bringing the pipeline through their state? guest: so far the state's have been letting canada and france andcanada have its way in terms of getting the pipeline through the state. -- canada and transcanada.

they are taking the land for the right of way for the pipeline. we are seeing a company being allowed to trump the interest of people in the united states. host: who regulate the pipeline through these states? does the regulation very -- vary? guest: it will be regulated in part by the states and in part by the department of transportation at the national level. we really don't have strong enough regulation of pipelines in the united states, not for whenot 4-d ra the raw tarzan's oil comes through the pipes. that type tends to cause more skills and is more difficult to clean up. there was a spill in kalamazoo, michigan a few years ago that has been our most expensive spill in u.s. history and is

still being cleaned up. host: most expensive, do you have a number? guest: i don't. host: tony, independents, in chapel hill. caller: good to talk to you all. a couple points i need to make. i worked in an oil field for about five years. that was 40 years ago. they drill oil wells 35 years and then [indiscernible] on top of that, they're not speaking about the pollution caused by fracking. in pennsylvania and several other states they can write their water with a flame. that's pollution. all the people that are for this, go to mayflower, that's a recent spill from tarzan's. they estimate it will take 30 years to clean up that skill and it was not gigantic. all the trains and everything

else -- drains and everything else. it's going to be a big problem. they will go oops when they have the first spill and clean it up and down the road they will say we made a mistake. mayflower?ink about not on the national news. i saw it one time on the national news. has plenty of information. guest: that spill was in arkansas. it happened relatively recently guitar sands oil spilled from a pipeline and customers through a suburban neighborhood. the pictures were shocking, the streets running with the oil. this is the kind that's more difficult to clean up than regular oil. it sinks to the bottom admixes and ithe soil and --

mixes with the soil. community members in a floor are concerned about their health. there were breathing in a lot of toxic vapors from the oil spill. it's not the kind of thing we want happening in the u.s. and certainly not in suburban communities or in our agricultural heartland, where it could be affecting our crops and cattle. printers and farmers in nebraska, where the pipeline would actually go through the eyes or for -- through the a cquifer, are very concerned what could happen. host: bill is calling from corpus christi, texas. caller: i agree with your guest 100%. the only problem i have is this. i don't see how she can say it is cleanable.

and do you trust an industry that in the 1980's closed perfectly good refineries so demand would overtake production and drive up the price? i'm retired from bp 35 years. why do we pay a world market oil when our own that's not allowed in other countries? it comes out of our own ground. host: why do you think that is, bill? you work for multinational company. caller: i think it's because they have caused just where they want us. and the the koch brothers are fixing to get even richer. would you run a line through your house knowing someday it will leak and if it did you could never cleaned it upp? guest: p points. excellent point.

we see a lot of people protesting this in texas and even risking getting arrested because they are so concerned about what a leak would do. the first keystone pipeline that was built least over one dozen times just in its first year of operation. these are pipelines that are risky. once they spill, it's bad news, everybody who is unfortunate enough to live along a pathway. host: joanne on our republican line in freeport, new york. caller: thank you. i've not made up my mind yet about the project. i am just wondering how the guest knows the motivation for the oil companies. i am truly listening to both casein is very

sure about what the big oil companies are going to do and that we will not benefit at all. ey.ms. cas thank you. guest: good question. we have looked at where they plan to go. they plan to make a lot of the stars and diluted product into a diesel. diesel is primarily exported from the united states. these are things the industry has said themselves. in fact, when you look at a remark from oil industry leaders in canada and in the united is oftenhat you see they say the keystone xl tar sands pipeline is necessary for the expansion of tarzans -- tar sands and the projects are

currently being put on hold without the keystone xl pipeline being built. so we very much see that in the early days of opposing the said one transcanada of the reasons for the pipeline was to access the higher prices on the international market. host: joanne, are you still there? caller: yes. host: what you make of the answer you just heard? caller: i have not digested it yet, to be honest. it is just such a hot issue. it's very difficult to come to a conclusion. both sides do have very good points. but the guest said it has been quoted in the newspaper, so i can do a little bit more research on my own. host: why are you so interested?

caller: i want to protect the environment. i can understand people worrying about their water supply. i can also see that there will be some jobs and i am jobless right now, so i can imagine somebody getting a job, which would be fantastic. and the oil companies to hire. even the gentleman who was complaining but he worked for bp for 35 years. he probably raised a family. there are employees who are doing good things for oil companies. so that my dilemma. i can definitely see both sides of it. host: all right. this on twitter -- guest: oil spills happen relatively frequently in all different sizes. our country is crisscrossed by

oil pipelines. we have been trying to get a better understanding of the pipelines that carry the diluted product from canada. that is something that is newer in the u.s. we have knocked at those a very long time and have not had very many of them, because we used to import more already upgraded or refined products from canada. what we are seeing when we look at that is if they seem to be more likely to spill. there's not a lot of good information out there. we need more information. unfortunately, the industry is not very forthcoming. they tend to say this is oil like any other. even though when you look at the numbers it says the pipelines tent to be more likely to have spills and leaks. in kalamazoo, michigan, where sands oila major tar spill into the river, almost 1 million barrels, it has been very hard to clean ups. it's not the same kind of

technology you would use to clean up conventional oil which tends to float on the surface. instead this 16 to the bottom and mixes with the settlement. as you try to get it out, if you are stirring it up and releasing the oil into the river. host: this in the washington times this morning -- what they know about this? guest: we know that as the u.s. supply of natural gas is increasing, it is coming more and more from fracking of natural gas, which is a process which can be very damaging. we don't have good safeguards in our country for natural gas fracking. this is something we need a lot more research on, a lot better

understanding of. the people who should be in the driver's seat our communities who are in the areas where the fracking will take place, so you have an apartment of communities who are likely to be most affected to have real say in what's happening to their water and their land. host: the washington post has the story from a 16 -- -- may 16. where does that stand? of ginahe nomination mccarthy is before the full senate. we are waiting for the senate to make a decision. they should move quickly at this point. gina mccarthy is somebody who has the trust of republicans and democrats. she has been a strong protector of public health for many, many years now. she is just what we need in terms of a strong leader in a time of climate crisis.

blunt,xcess senator roy republican, has a hold on her nomination. he will have to remove that before the full senate can consider nomination. susan casey lefkowitz, international program director with the natural resources defense council, thanks for your time. guest: thank you. coming up, tin-tin in our "spotlight on magazines" series. we will look at the front cover of bloomberg business week about jpmorgan chase's jamie dimon and why they call him wall street's indispensable man. first a news update from c-span radio. greg kiss nightclub 15 eastern. results in for the california mayoral race. the city controller has been defeated in the race to become the next mayor of los angeles. the city council and received 54% of the vote. a 42 year-old be the first cities selected jewish mayor. he will replace the outgoing mayor antonio villaraigosa on

july 1. and the other coast in connecticut, train service is back on schedule for the connecticut to new york city commuters. this morning the section of track damaged in last friday's derailment has been repaired. than 70 people were injured in the evening rush-hour crash last friday. one person still in critical condition. on capitol hill, one of the witnesses called to appear to testify about internal revenue service treatment of tea party groups will not be answering lawmakers' questions at this morning's hearing.. her lawyer has told the government and oversight committee that the irs official will invoke propofol amendment right against self- incrimination. that hearing starts in 15 minutes. you can hear it live on c-span radio or watch on c-span3. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> this is the parlor of the way it looked during garfield's 1880 campaign. this was the formal parlor and

family room. it served as both. ofand lucretia spent a lot time with their children and adored their children very much. they lost two children in infancy. those children die before the family moved here. their five children all had the benefit of having a two very intelligent parents who strongly believed in education. books were very important to them. their children loved to read as well. the family would sit by the fireplace and three to one another, often times out loud in the evening. that was one of their favorite activities. we are here in the family dining room. in the center of the table is this very interesting art piece. it's called a barge of venus. it won an award of the philadelphia centennial. adoredrfield absolutely her time at the exhibition. she would write pages and pages

of what she saw at the site. a lot of people to think of mrs. garfield as a very artistically. intelligent,ery loved the sciences. >> our conversation on lucretia garfield is available on our website, c-span.org. watch monday for our next program on first lady frances cleveland. continues.journal take ourwednesday, we look at recent magazine articles as part of our spotlight on magazine series. today the front cover of of the bloomberg businessweek -- joining us from new york, nick summers, covers wall street for bloomberg. you write about a vote that took place yesterday in florida on whether or not jamie dimon should continue on in his dual

roles as ceo and chairman. what happened? guest: he won big time. it was a lot of speculation he was going to lose his vote and he might have to give up his role as chairman as a result. the same issue was voted on last year at the shareholders' meeting. it's got 40% support. that was before everyone knew the full extent of the fullwhlae -- the full extent of the london whale losses. he wonl. only 32% of shareholders voted flip those roles. -- he won. a massive win for jamie dimon. host: the headlines very because of another vote that took place. the front page of the wall street journal, there headline -- and the washington post has this --

what happened? guest: there's a huge debate right now on whether jamie dimon had a great year or terrible year. on the great side of the ledger, there's $21 billion that the bank posted as profits. on the negative side, there are these federal investigations and other scrutiny the bank is facing. year that hasof a to be put in context of his entire career. who led super banker jpmorgan through the crisis without posting a loss. he was steady in the storm. the idea that even jamie dimon could have massive problems at his bank, most famously with the london will lawsuit, that really dented his armor or sternest is halo,-- or tarnished his

it's been one of the most trying years of his career. yesterday was the climax of all of this. --t: "politico" reports you write about the myriad of federal investigations into this company. let's take them each. we begin with the london whale story. explain that for viewers. guest: there was a unit in london whose job was to manage the banks' risks. instead it builds up a hugely risky position in credit derivatives. people might recognize that phrase from the financial crisis. it's one of the instruments that was wild. , it was so big that other traders started referring at the londonader

whale. that name helped people see what was going on. $6.2 billion now that jpmorgan has lost. jamie dimon has complicated the issue for himself when he dismissed it as a tempest in a teapot, which he quickly realized how stupid that was. boeing $6nks that billion on a risky trade, massaging the number so it looks like you've lost less, nobody thinks that is a tempest in a teapot. it's a much bigger deal that tells us some of the stuff that went wrong in 2008 could go wrong again. that you also right about the company is being investigated for manipulating energy markets. what happened? guest: the federal energy regulatory commission are investigating whether

jpmorgan's energy traders manipulated markets. that is ongoing. we don't know all the details yet. it's been an ugly public process. in totallly operates confidentiality, but they have had a couple court battles with jpmorgan on what type of documents the company has a turnover. they served a notice. is ones notice regulator tells a bank we are pretty sure we will bring a regulatory action against you and here are some details. we will give you a chance to respond. it's a sign this could be imminent. they also mentioned that specific employees of jpmorgan like be named, which seems this could be sort of a political thing, given how a few specific individuals were disciplined for their role in

the financial crisis. there's probably a popular thirst to put faces to practices. in this case, something like manipulating energy prices either up or down, costing states a lot of money, that is something people can really wrap their hands around. host: we're talking about jamie dimon, the head of jpmorgan chase. yesterday's shareholders held a vote to keep him on in his dual role as chairman and ceo. lots of headlines in the papers this morning about that. i want to get your questions for nick summers. he wrote a bloomberg business week cover story about jamie dimon and saying he's o street's indispensable man. start dialing in now so we can

get your thoughts on this. nick summers, in your piece you talk about the london will fiasco, about manipulating energy markets, another investigation is inadequately guarding against money- laundering. what happened? has criticized jpmorgan for its controls on anti-money laundering, likes biting specific spot suspicious activity. the bank paid $88 million in 2011 to settle charges it violated sanctions against iran, the sudan, cuba, other places. and the facte of -- that it is still being talked about now, an example how the whale was on so many front pages and was on cable news so often, invented the idea that jpmorgan was a good bank, that

it could be globally complex and was a good citizen and was safe. host: why do people have the impression of jpmorgan chase being a good bankers as the other banks? guest: it the crisis. the fact that jpmorgan was considered to be the most secure bank during that crisis and never posted a loss. jamie dimon was always a legend on wall street going into that. people thought that he did a pretty heroic job. coming out of the crisis, a lot of banks had a lot of troubles. jpmorgan has been consistently profitable. jamie dimon eagerly adopted this. he played this character as number one defender of banks and big banks. when everyone was furious with banks, he was the one who stood up and some cases gotten regulators' faces. he built up this idea that i

jpmorgan was doing it right. the comeuppance of the london will lawsuit is part of the reason it resonated so much. -- the london whale. --t: this story what is his relationship with those in washington, including the president? while: jamie dimon for a had a cozy relationship. he was referred to as president obama's favorite banker. that has become more strained after the lawsuits. dimon had testified twice last summer about what exactly went wrong. he is an interesting character. he showed up to his testimony wearing presidential cufflinks, a reminder that at one point he was close to the president an still has some influence there

and that he is barely a democrat and one of the few big democrats on wall street. relationship in washington is theater. behind-the-scenes he is friendlier than he might seem publicly. one of the former colleagues of his is bill daley, former midwest chairman of jpmorgan. guhost: they're both from chicago. and dathe president ley. lived in new york. he put together a monster called citigroup. he was the north two, the heir apparent. he ended up clashing with his mentor and was fired. that's when jamie dimon moved to chicago. when he took the top job at bank one, he did a solid job.

that merged with jpmorgan and that returned him to new york for round two over pretty impressive career. host: this on twitter -- do you know? guest: i believe his contributions go towards democrats. he was a big supporter of president obama in the 2008 election. it has gotten more complicated losses have torn down a bit of the marketing around him and his bank. whst: the right about the ale fiasco, metal plating markets, abuse of homeowners in foreclosure, facilitating bernard madoff's pawlenty scheme, and misleading the public about this new london situation. given all that, what is congress doing in reaction to that? are they specifically looking at

banks like j.p. morgan, who have somebody at the top who has a dual role? and is that appropriate? guest: congress has really focused on the whale stuff. they issued this report earlier this year that was blistering about what the bank did wrong, a lot of new information, some of it specifically about jamie dimon's role. it painted a picture of a bank that is generally contemptuous towards regulators. there is an example of bank employees dealing with regulators and calling them stupid. another example of jamie dimon ordering certain investment bank data not be sent to occ because he felt it was too much to give them. congress has not really thehed in in a big way on ceo. -ceo.

c e zero-chairman -- ceo/chairman split. still some lingering concerns over the crisis began as turned into a career referendum on jamie dimon. there's a lot of posturing. it's a big caldron of drama around this issue. host: that's our topic here this morning with nick summers, who as a cover story -- mark is independent caller in new jersey. caller: of what different light show on pbs last night in our area in which they talked about this whole situation, the wall

street crash and blaming the executives and trying to get enough evidence. they even talked about the. justice the they reviewed the justice department,. the justice department claimed they could not get enough criminal evidence to bring criminal charges. an independent filmmaker had or 50ed together about 40 whistle-blowers, still incomplete documentary. these people confessed that the people would check on the mortgages were forced to lie about this, basically. what got me about the whole program is that frontline was basically saying that there is enough evidence and that somehow the justice department does not want to prosecute these large wall street firms like jpmorgan, whose name specifically came up, because he could not

sleep at night knowing that it possibly might have repercussions down the road. i wonder if mr. summers would like to comment on that program that he might have seen, hopefully. guest: i believe that also aired earlier this year. it is a terrific documentary by frontline. noted, a lot of what'd uncovers is galling. jpmorgan would state aggressively that they were the good bank during the crisis. there were involved in some of the stuff but did not get in so deep that they would have failed. that their argument. some people debate that. it took a bailout money. they said they did not need it, but they only did it to take one for the team, so investors could not be able to point to which banks needed money and which ones did not there's sti.

fore's still a huge thirst disciplining the banks that put the country in so much trouble. role asho took on this chief spokesman for big banking spokesmanhe has been less able to inhabit that role because of all the problems the bank has had this year. a soap box to get on. it will be interesting to see whether he gets up on that soapbox having survived this vote, having won the vote, or whether it keeps his head down as he has been doing recently. host: you quoted john mack, a former morgan stanley ceo in the peace, saying if i had those numbers, i don't know if i would be apologetic either. guest: yes, one of the things we did in our piece of tried to take the temperature of the wall street elite and how they feel about jamie dimon and this issue

of whether he's unfit to be chairman and ceo. a lot of people took this as an opportunity to sort of come out of where they were hiding. people gave us interviews for the first time since the crisis. you start to see some of the attitudes that precipitated the crisis. -- a lot ofutzpah these guys are fellow ceo's and chairman, big wall street guys saying how dare shareholders dimon with emotion after the year that he's had? they have every right to do this. comments that you just read from are illustrative of this idea that we have come a ways since the crisis. it was not just yesterday. a couple years have passed now.

it feels like we are in a new phase. some people are quite upset that dimon would begin to be large numberor the of problems the bank has, given they are so profitable. host: the blue line is jpmorgan chase reaching over $20 billion in profits. the other three big banks are discolored lines remaining, showing their profits below jpmorgan chase. also noted in the store that since 2007 jpmorgan chase has added more than 2400 branches and 78,000 employees. in california, a republican caller, sandy. caller: i wanted to ask you a question or have you remark about the california attorney general recently filed a lawsuit against the credit card division of jpmorgan chase.

probably there is going to be other states following. these companies were getting low interest or no interest credit cards to people and let them write checks. particularly people who probably were not necessarily creditworthy of that much. when they hit a certain amount after a few months, they raised the interest rate to 29%. theseon trial with lawsuits are themselves or to law firms and at people are flooding the courts. people are not able to obtain an attorney to represent them and get a false judgment. numberorking a terrible on flooding the courts and damaging people. host: nick summers. guest: this is another front where jpmorgan is facing regulatory scrutiny.

the banks defenders would point out that credit cards are often really profitable for the bank. they have taken on american express in terms of going after affluence spenders. that is paid off as the economy has begun to recover. and as those spender's cent. expend more and people to fall less. the flip side is there are really troubling problems in their credit card division. it's really all about the big question of can a bank be this gigantic without also breaking regulation?ssing there are people who cheer on the bank's profits and those who feel they did a really terrible things to get those profits. i will leave it to you which side to get on. both sides could also be true at the same time. host: the baltimore sun has this

,eadline on the vote yesterday shareholders keeping jamie dimon in his dual role. steve in texas, a democrat. caller: good morning. there's an article in the dallas morning news about this. they are talked about three jpmorgan board members were elected with less than 60% approval. the chairman and ceo of honeywell was one of them. and another who runs a privately owned investment company. and another whose president of the american museum of natural history. the eight other directors including jamie dimon were reelected with the support of more than 90%. less,se three got 60% or

i think it says while there are two known firms that advised big shareholders on how to vote their shares, they have recommended keeping out some of the others or on the board's risk policy committee during last year's london trading loss. do you agree with these two firms that recommended those three go and still keep jamie dimon even though he should have gotten rid of them if there were the culprits? guest: it's remarkable that the entire board was reelected. the person with the worst performance was the director of the museum. she was conspicuously absent from the meeting, the annual meeting yesterday in tampa. somehree were targeted by of these firms that advised shareholders on what to do with their votes, because they were in charge of managing -- or there were on the risk committee

that oversees the bank's risk policy and they obviously clearly blew it when it came to lawsuit.n whale diamond -- jamie dimon defended them yesterday. he said they could not have spotted anything. i think those words will be chewed over for a while. the jamie dimon has said the bank needs to change the way it runs its risk operation after london. afterg that board intact such a colossal screw up i think will continue to unsettle a lot of people. a lot of people do expect there to be some changes on the board in the short to medium term. in general, the board has stayed remarkably intact since the crisis. it might be off by one or two board members, but at citigroup and bank of america it's been nine out of 11 or 9 of 13 board members are new since the crisis.

at jpmorgan, only two new board member since then. so it's been a pretty stable group, which leads to concerns that jamie dimon has them all in his pocket and that there's a massive problem that the chair of the board whose job is to ,versee the ceo is the ceo especially when some of them have been serving for so long. independent directors. the 50%hem did cross mark. host: the new york times elute to that in their business section --

she decided not to resign from the board. guest: this is an all hands on deck situation where the bank is battening down the hatches. it did everything it could to survive the vote. dimon did more than survive. he won big time. the bank tried to project the image of calm, but behind the scenes there was a massive lobbying effort to convince shareholders not to adam oates dimon, not to pick off any of these board members -- not to demote dimon. many of them were caught in a the situation where they might

help wanted to make a change, but voting to put that into place might have knocked down the stock of the bank. how theall be watching shakeout tappan's, whether it is a matter of weeks or months. host: we're talking about jamie dimon, the head of jpmorgan chase. yesterday's shareholders voted to keep him in his dual role. it's the topic of bloomberg businessweeek's cover story. it's part in our "spotlight on magazines" series. if you have a comment on nick summers, the co-author of the story, call -- for all others calling. john is independent on the line. caller: hi.

you mentioned the underlying rage which the average american and especially the lower class or middle class has towards the debacle, the financial debacle itself. the one remark i recall during the entire financial hearings was by a house member who basically said the bank's own this place. one of the few times we got an absolute truth out of one of our politicians. is when we to you look back at the savings and loan debacle, we had over 900 individuals that did time, that went to jail. referencing the gentlemen who talked about the frontline ,ocumentary and the evidence certainly when you hear criminal lawyers indicated that there was enough evidence that an

indictment could have occurred, what has happened to the culture in the criminal justice system in those 20 years since that we literally have had the two trials on wall street and the individuals were both found innocent of running a hedge fund. what has happened to the culture in the criminal justice system? that we have had no indictment of those leaders? and second, do we have this incredible run up in the markets and a quantitative easing, another bubble, when will the business cycle collapse again? will it take that collapsed to send those who are in power in the criminal syndicates of the large banks? host: i will have to leave it there. nick summers? guest: number one, i would try

to forecast whether we are in a bubble or not or whether it's about to burst. i think the caller is absolutely right that this is still simmering rage about what happened at and the fact that very few people really paid for it in terms of doing time or pay large fines. a lot of the heat in the justice department now are going after hedge funds. you see a lot of that around one entity. i don't think you'll see banks paying a huge price in terms of individuals being led away in handcuffs. that will continue going people for a while now, i think. it is a fire that has not gone out and may not go out. , ithere is another blow up would obviously flare even higher. people are very angry.

i'm not sure what to do their except to agree with you that there's this massive outrage. host: on the issue of the economy and whether we are headed towards another bubble, those are questions shopper sure to be asked of fed chairman ben bernanke when he testifies on capitol hill today. the usa market section, what to watch -- again, ben bernanke testifying before the joint economic committee on capitol hill. go to c-span.org to find out when we will air that. arlene in trenton, michigan, a democrat. caller: hi.

of like to make a couple comments. my first one is that what wall street and the upper echelon of so-l street's, including our called indispensable man on wall street, there's no such thing as indispensable. there's always someone else able to do a better job and do it within the boundaries of legality. there's been enough illegal actions going on by the government in all aspects of it that some of it is tantamount to treason. the last time i checked, trees and was punishable by law and by death. i am highly unhappy that wall street has walked away from this totally unscathed. it has put billions of people in such a position financially that we cannot even make ends meet. i live on $700 a month. i live in michigan. there's no public transportation reliable for me, so i have to have a car.

i have to have insurance. i have to keep my homeowners covered. host: ok. nick summers, do we know how much jamie dimon makes as the ceo and chairman? guest: his salary was cut in half last year but is still north of $11 million. it's a huge bonus as well. cutting his pay in half means very little to people who are struggling as the economy still struggles to get back on its feet. i wanted to touch on the idea that dimon is indispensable. that word is meant as a double- edged sword. obviously, it's good if you are considered indispensable. but on the other side you are in trouble if your system relies test on one person. he could be hit by a bus tomorrow and they would have to find someone to replace him. warren buffett has a great line about your business should be set up so that an idiot can run it because sooner or later

someone will. there's also the larger idea of we cannot have a banking system that is based on superbankers, people supposedly through their almost divine sense of intelligence and hard work are the only people who can run ande massively complicated massively risky institutions. got bilked up as this sort of creature. this last year has gone a long way towards caring that down. the vote yesterday also showed that he really is still a person of tremendous strength within the industry. host: the wall street journal editorial page weighs in on yesterday's vote. seemss the morgan board set to make changes in any case which could be useful if it recruits heavyweights to understand the risk of the zero- era.rest rate dodd-frank par

nick summers? guest: i guess i will leave the wall street editorial-page to its views. if the board-- does that shook up, i think people are going to want to see that there are some new voices and some fresh blood. on the other hand, just being realistic, dimon just won this thing.

people made their best case for why he should not be the chairman of the board at the same time he is the ceo. he's not a guy who likes to give that power. i would be really curious to see exactly who they have in mind to bring on and how realistically -- just how fresh those voices would be in that boardroom which dimon has dominated and after yesterday's vote is still in a very strong position over. host: larry in rockville, maryland, independent. caller: hi. you said a lot of things i agree with, mr. summers. one of the things that you said was these organizations are so to and so complicated, have a pyramid into one guy is just and reasonable. it is not practical.

that is partly what caused the problem we are in right now. jamie dimon as far as ceo is probably one of the brightest. he kept jpmorgan out of this mess because even though they developed a scheme they could of purchased these defaults ops, which is different than the whale problem, they could have made big investments but they chose not to because they knew they were risky and he kept his company away from them. that part of why they ended up in a good position. he himself is one of the best managers, if you read its history, he's a great manager. however, the organization's are way too big. not just his. it is citibank and all those banks. they need to being somehow or another broken up in a managed way. guest: yes, i think you captured a lot of the public opinion.

guy, very very smart accomplished. a lot of people are big fans of his. they admire what he did during the crisis. but these positions are so huge. trading blowlion up can happen in london under his watch, then can anyone run one of these things? i'm curious to see how visible a role dimon takes coming out of this thing in the debate about to big to fail, whether he starts to speak out more on legislation making its way through congress. there's a real public appetite for shrinking these banks, breaking them up even, or at least making them all safer and all were able to withstand losses of the kind that happened in london. host: can you explain the brown legislation? guest: one reason it appeals to

a lot of people is it is a lot smaller than dodd-frank. it is a much simpler and much more streamlined approach where it has a couple ways to control the size of banks and how much capital they have to keep on hand. is afrank, now famously, sprawling lot and much of which remains unrepentant as regulators have missed deadlines and worked with the industry and other concerned groups to spell out these rules that are not yet in place. it-- it is a sprawling law. host: alan in texas. caller: good morning. i own a few shares of j.p. morgan. i kind of feel like the banks for theg overly blamed catastrophic crisis we went through.

as a matter of fact, i keep on my desk a copy of the staff report of the house of representatives from july 7, 2009. this was a committee on oversight and government reform. darrell issa was the leader of it. all this started really way back under clinton. host: i will leave it there because we're running out of time. the role of congress in all this in the crisis. guest: i'm sorry, what is the question? host: he was alluding to the role congress played in the financial crisis and the situation that the banks found themselves in that the banks are not necessarily all to blame, that regulators and congress played a role. guest: sure. regulators and congress loosen regulations on the banks, on wall street. some of that helped to increase

the crisis. the people who want to take the long view, to bring this back to jamie dimon, the role that he played in the first part of his career in building up the financial conglomerate that became citigroup, for that to happen, the glass-steagall act, the depression era of reform had to be undone. one of the authors of this legislation, senator phil graham talked to us for our peace. he said if i was building the intergalactic bank, i would look real hard at jamie dimon as the leader. whohere are still people feel big banking can get bigger and that we need guys like jamie dimon to run it. many disagree with that and feel they need to be in throttled down or even broken up or at least have a better i kept on them.

host: mary from potomac, maryland, a democrat. real quick. caller: i worked for companies where voting is ultimately controlled by the board of directors anyway. the fact that he was reelected to both positions is basically because people turned over their voting shares to corporations to vote for them. host: i will leave it there. sorry about that. we will have nick summers jump in on that. is that true? guest: there were many different actors in this vote. you had really influential shareholder advisory firms telling people which way to cast their ballots. you had jpmorgan lobbying fiercely in the other direction. big groups that could have tilted the balance against dimon were ultimately persuaded and casts large numbers of votes against the proposal that would have split up his role and demoted him as

chairman. host: bloomberg business week cover story, why jamie dimon is water street's indispensable man. nick summers, we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me. of theext, live coverage house, a vote today on the keystone xl pipeline. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the speaker pro tempore: the use will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 22, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable tom mcclintock to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.