congressional office director talks about a recent report on the cost of obama administration regulations in 2014. plus, your facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal," is next. ♪ host: good morning, it is thursday, january 8, 2015. senate republicans say their first order of business will be the keystone xl pipeline and that formally kicks off today with a vote and final passage slated for next week. house gop leaders are also pushing for the pipeline in that chamber. no amendments are allowed. the white house has issued a veto threat. after an attempted coup against boehner this week, the status quo is continued.

we want to go outside of washington today to get your thoughts on your congressional party's leadership. the numbers are on the screen. you can also go to social media. the phone lines are open. we will get to your thoughts in a moment, but first we want to show you what the majority leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, had to say on the floor yesterday about their new majorities -- majority's legislative priorities. [video clip] >> this november people did not ask for a government that tried to do everything and sales and they didn't ask for government that aims to do nothing and succeed. they asked simply for a government that works.

they want a government of the 21st century. one that functions with efficiency and accountability, competence and purpose. they want to washington that is more interested in modernizing and reminding government then adding more layers to it, and they want more jobs, more opportunity for the middle class, and more flexibility in a complex age with complex demands. that is why we plan to pursue common sense jobs ideas including those with bipartisan support. things like reforming a broken tax system to make it simpler and friendlier to job creation opening more markets to american made products so we can create more jobs here at home, and moving forward with bipartisan infrastructure projects like the keystone xl pipeline.

americans are changing this congress and this president. what they are saying to us, they are changing as -- they are challenging this congress and its president to work for them. they are challenging us to work for americans, not just jobs for ourselves. host: republicans have taken control of both chambers and the senator from kentucky is the new majority leader on that site. we want to get your thoughts on the leadership or your party. -- for your party. what confidence do you happen them? the phone lines are open to stop the "new york times" has this piece -- further down in the piece they reported that republicans are off to a shaky start.

in a closed-door meeting, mr. boehner said we would have a closed-door meeting with the goal of bringing -- we will have a family meeting with the goal of bringing the team together. what are your thoughts? caller: harry reid is in the hospital and nancy pelosi has not been able to do a lot. my personal congressman, chris

van hollen, i'm very much behind him. but i don't think democrats will be able to lead us. i got a call yesterday from people who are trying to raise money to get rid of blue dog democrat who can make sure that obama will not be able to do a veto. then we will really be in trouble. i think what will happen is people like elizabeth wharton -- elizabeth wharren are going to lead the people. host: do you agree with what elizabeth warnrren was talking about? >> i absolutely agree -- caller: i absolutely agree. she has been talking about her self and these is not fuzzy math. this is real math. it reminded me of how much trouble america is in and we really have to pay attention to what that small voice in the bill -- in the wilderness, elizabeth warren, is talking

about. host: she does have a seat at the leadership table. harry reid invited her to participate in those meetings and ring that was to the table. is that enough for you? caller: i don't think that is enough. she is the voice of a woman alone at the table. what has to happen is the american people have to say "she speaks for me," and then people will listen to what she's saying . host: do you think the democratic party under the leadership of harry reid and nancy pelosi is not progressive enough? caller: absolutely not progressive enough. host: joe, what do you think of the leadership?

caller: i'm not happy with either side. host: ok, why? caller: i think pelosi and reid have been a disaster for america. we have trillion dollar deficits . the war on terror has gotten worse and worse. the economy is horrible and people cannot find good jobs. this is all under obama, pelosi and read. and on the republican side we have boehner and mitch mcconnell, who had a chance at the end of this year to put an end to -- or at least cut off the funds to the illegal amnesty that president obama signed by executive order, and they have not been able -- and they didn't. and they are not unable able to push through the keystone pipeline. they have situated to the deficit. they arrested -- they are as guilty as the democrats are. i think we need to clean house in the leadership position in both the democratic and

republican party. host: who do you want to see in leadership? caller: i would like someone who, number one, is a constitutional conservative. i am not a supporter of elizabeth warren on the democratic side. if you want elizabeth ward in leadership positions, than what you want is a socialist america. she is a socialist. on the republican side, i would want to constitutional conservative, and i would want to fiscally conservative individual who would balance the budget. and as far as jobs, let me say crime for an increase in minimum wage. i don't think it should go from 750 -- $7.50 to $10.10. i think that would really hurt small businesses. but i could see minimum wage going up from $7.50 up to nine dollars or nine dollars with five cents an hour.

-- or $9.25 an hour. host: thanks, joe. elizabeth warren praised nancy pelosi and maxine waters and the house for blocking the delay of the vocal role. it -- volker rule. this is the "washington times" on that. hattie in houston texas democrat. what you think about your party leaders? caller: i think president obama is doing all that he can. but just like the other, i think harry reid and nancy pelosi, i

think they're holding back when they're talking. and the republicans just talk so bold like boehner and mitch mcconnell. and they say stuff that they know is wrong. just like the gentleman said a few minutes ago, about the jobs and everything. we have more jobs since president obama has been in. he is doing everything he can do. and they cut it down and everything. the democrats, when they were in they did not step up and do what they were supposed to. they were holding back. they were trying to be equal but they didn't do that. host: let me ask you what do you want from these democratic leaders now that they are in the minority? do you want them to fight tooth and nail or cooperate? caller: i want them to fight

tooth and nail because everything they are trying to -- just like the pipeline. this is harmful to the environment. and it's not pretty the regular jobs. 50 new jobs, that's not good. and this is not good at all because if the republicans and democrats would work together, we would have so many jobs. you see with the jobs and more people is buying stuff. right here in houston the people down the street, they were republicans. president obama help them save their house, you know, given the money and giving them a break. and now they helped me. we've got to help each other. host: all right, heading.

on the second day in session the report says this -- we will would be covering a hearing today on capitol hill on the senate side, the energy and natural resources committee having a hearing about that keystone at sale. live coverage on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. and as we told you at the top in the senate chamber on the floor they are expected to kick off formally on the keystone xl pipeline with both slated for next week. jeremy and ashley parker are -- jeremy peters and ashley parker are reporting this.

we are getting your thoughts on your party leaders. what competence level do you have in them? we go to gym next in lorain ohio, independent. hi, jim. caller: not a lot of confidence. mr. mcconnell was on there this morning and he's really just talking the same. he was -- i thought we would see some new ideas out of these guys, but it is really just the same thing.

he is talking about the pipeline, which ain't going to be many jobs. how about our infrastructure throughout this whole country echoed that will make some jobs. and then he mentioned -- this whole country? that will make some jobs. and he mentioned trade agreements. trade agreements is what put us in the 2000 eight worst recession since the 1930's. what does he mean "trade agreements"? what kind of jobs are left in america? low-paying jobs. host: jim, you are an independent. do you like the democratic leaders? caller: no, i haven't been happy with any of them. the collar before that mentioned we need to get rid of all of them, especially the old-timers. i never was for term limits, but maybe it is time. i don't know what the answer is but you will see the same gridlock. republicans really need to come up with some good ideas. how about keeping some jobs?

host: winchester, virginia, sheila. also an independent. what you make of the party leadership? caller: good morning. it is very, very divided. i've been watching the politics for many years. mitch mcconnell decided he wanted to say "president obama, one term president" it showed us that side of the aisle did not want to work with us on any kind of compromise. people in america have a short-term memory. people have access to look evil's records up. -- people's records. get with your neighbors and your community to change the situation. if you are going to keep voting for the same people and expect a different outcome, come on. people need to change the situation.

host: sheila, are you a democrat? caller: i used to be a democrat but i'm falling farther and farther away. host: ok, why? caller: look at the industry. all you have to do is look at the citizens united. who put the most money into them? repeal it. host: do you favor a democrat like elizabeth warren? caller: she at least has middle-class in her heart. she is talking a good game, but to me, i kill a lot of people in my neighborhood and my community, actions speak louder than words. show me something and then i will accept it. host: all right, sheila. caller: happy new year. host: happy new year. democratic collar, hi, there. -- democratic caller, either.

caller: outsourcing our jobs has been the main problem since 1970 when the coal mines went down. and in a started sending jobs over -- and then they started sending jobs overseas. you cannot bring jobs if the american ritual controller jobs are sending jobs overseas making the products, and sending them back home to the united states and for us to buy at a higher price. that is not helping the community and it's not helping the american family. you have to bring the jobs back here and put them into the hands of the american people who help this country. rich people didn't get rich by themselves. i agree with elizabeth warren. i stand by her. she is the second coming of eleanor roosevelt. host: let me down this off of you. it is in the "washington post" about elizabeth warned speech yesterday.

they said her speech before the seminar on raising wages scheduled more than a month ago fell on the day that obama went to detroit to highlight the auto industry. they go on to say a paragraph down that the difference may be largely a matter of emphasis, but the contrast highlight the dilemma facing democrats as they set about framing their economic message going into the 2016 election season. should they take credit for the rebound or tell the people that they feel their pain? caller: i think they should tell the people they feel their pain. that has been their downfall. they don't continue to reach out to the american people. you have to talk to america that you are for them, not wall

street. as long as wall street continues to do what they want to do -- and look, banks need to fail. we fail as american people when we lose our jobs. and the banks continue to bring in more money. that is not fair. they need to feel the pain just like we feel. that has -- and that has been big problem. you cannot have six in one hand and half-dozen and the other and expect to have 12. host: i want to show you part of the majority leaders reach on the floor yesterday. it was the first time he came to the floor to talk about the new majority and how they plan to run the senate. he said, when the first steps -- one of the first steps to fixing washington is to fix the senate. regular order is the way he wants to do it. listen to what he had to say. [video clip] >> last session, the house but over countless common sense

bipartisan hills. too many of them died right here without so much as a hearing, and senators from both parties with ideas for jobs and growth were routinely stopped. it is time to change the business model. we need to return to regular order. we need to get committees working again. we need to recommit to a rational functioning of appropriations process. we need to open up the legislative process in a way that allows more minutes from both sides. sometimes it's going to be -- it's going to mean actually working more often. sometimes it's going to be -- meaning working late. but restoring the senate is the right thing to do and the practical thing to do. because we are only going to pass meaningful legislation when both parties are given a stake in the outcome. host: the majority leader on the

senate floor yesterday talking about bringing regular order back to the senate that is allowing amendments and debate on the floor. there might be late nights and late days and they might be working five days here in washington on achieving that. this is dana milbank piece in "the washington post" this morning.

dana milbank's piece today in the washington post. here is what o saying in twitter -- on twitter -- what capitol hill is saying on twitter in recent days. nancy pelosi -- and here is a quote from minority leader harry reid -- and then speaker of the house john boehner --

we are getting your thoughts on the party leadership. what is your confidence level in them? cori is an independent in vermont. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: good morning. i love the "let's build new roads and new bridges." how long will they run on that? that is a temporary short fixed lower economy. i have no coveted in the republican party. every two to four years they start the good guy-bad guy role and then they switch. the only interest they have our corporate interests and their own interests. i agree with your color from virginia. we need to clean house. we want someone in there who is a constitutionalist and is therefore the people, not just for corporations. they turn us into a corporate fascist state work corporations have as much power to my even more power than congress has. host: fairmount, west virginia,

george, democratic collar. caller: good morning. i'm from the great state of west virginia. i'm a conservative democrat. what i've got to say it, this president, right from the beginning that he took office, he had a democratic congress -- the senate and house and everything -- and there were so many bills that he did not pass and everything. and then he waits until the party changes and he comes out and tells the american people that he's got a telephone and this and that and everything. you don't threaten people reckon the beginning before you even start doing anything. this man has ruined the country -- right from the beginning before you even start doing anything. if that man has ruined the country. and the democratic party that i know, that i have belonged to for many years, it has changed. it is a liberal parties of study is doing everything for the liberal people. that is what he is doing and

he's listening to the liberals and they are ruining this country. everything is a giveaway. host: george, we are focusing on the congressional party leaders. would you say the same about them? caller: no, no. i think this new leadership that is just coming in will make a lot of good changes for this country. and if they don't, we throw them out. the democratic party has had a long time in office. and they did nothing but ruin a country. wake up in this country, wake up. host: all right, george. let's listen to what the number two democrat in the senate, dick durbin, from illinois had to say in response to that speech we showed you from mitch mcconnell. dick durbin said ending in four senate minority leader -- standing in for senate minority leader harry reid who is at home resting

after falling. here is what dick durbin had to say. [video clip] >> i believe this side of the aisle, the senator serving on this side are committed to the rules of the united states senate. we of course, will work to preserve this great institution and to protect our own individual rights and responsibilities in the senate. i welcome what senator mcconnell, our new majority leader, has envisioned as a more active floor in the senate where we do not run into the lengthy and repeated filibusters, but in fact, ring amendments to the floor, debate them, vote on them, and ultimately has to legislation. that is the procedure of the senate which historically has been honored but fell sadly into disrepair over the last several years.

we hope that our minority status in the senate is short-lived. i think we will establish the democrats are a much better minority when it comes to the senate then perhaps, those on the other side -- than, perhaps those on the other side of the aisle. only time will tell. host: senator dick durbin talking about the democrats new role in the minority and how they plan to behave. we are getting your thoughts on congressional leaders on capitol hill and your thoughts on the senate and confidence level in them. the phone lines are open and we will take your calls, but first i want to share this from "the new york times" this morning.

a major breakthrough being reported in a lot of newspapers this morning will stop -- this morning. many of you know about the attack in paris on the satirical newspaper. this is the "washington post" this morning.

that is from the "washington post" this morning. we will talk more about that in our last hour here on the "washington journal," getting your thoughts on whether this terror attack was an attack on expression of freedom. we hope you all waiting on that as well. but for now, we are talking

about congressional leadership on capitol hill, getting your thoughts on your confidence level in those leaders. let's go back to ed in lawrenceville, georgia republican. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: good morning. yeah, i do have confidence in the leadership of the house and i do have confidence in the new leadership in the senate. what i'm worried about, though is we still have president obama in office and in 2013, he led over -- let over 41 million -- 21 muslims host: into the country and given them jobs. host:where did you get that statistic? caller: look it up. host: where did you find it? i guess we won't find out. jim in jacksonville, quarter.

-- jacksonville, florida. caller: as a former republican, i'm encouraged by what i see. i don't think the issue of is part of leadership. politicians are elected to represent the concerns and views of the people who elected them. the founding fathers envisioned the process to be ugly. host: georgia ryan, what do you think about your leaders? caller: i'm very pleased with john boehner being written -- being reelected and mitch mcconnell moving into the senate. this past election, i'm very pleased with that. host: why those two? they met yesterday and had a joint meeting. do you think they work well

together? caller: there is no problem on the republican side. there will be disagreements and everyone wants to do things their own way but you've got to have leaders. that is why they will be working well together. as a retired military person i'm very pleased with who we have in office now. host: ryan, are you familiar with the whole story about congressman steve scalise, the republican from louisiana who is part of the leadership, and the controversy around him? caller: [speaking french] that is french, and am not going to translate. but let me tell you, that is bull groep. steve scalise is a very good congressman and he will not have any problems. host: this is from the new york times -- "new york times" with

republicans they see more questions about steve scalise of louisiana. after as you saw from that picture steve scalise was part of the leadership on capitol hill where republican leaders met with reporters and two questions. one of the questions the house took was whether or not the congressman from louisiana steve scalise, should be part of republican leadership. here is what republicans had to say. [video clip] >> i know this man. i work with him. i know what is in his heart. he is a decent honest person who made a mistake. we have all made mistakes. host: speaker of the house john boehner in a news conference

yesterday, after several times about steve scalise's decision to make that speech. yet previously called it an error in judgment as well. in georgia, republican collar, davis, what is the name of your town? caller: chattahoochee. host: ok, go ahead. caller: i've missed you girl. what have you been up to? host: detroit, michigan. caller: i have a comment for both parties. they are doing terrible, as far as i am concerned. the constitution is for the people, by the people. therefore, they have not even asked us on really what to vote for. the middle class and the lower class are the ones that built

this country, so they should be involved. i think our government has gone to the kiddie level. the old ones need to be replaced. if you really look back on the movies, geometry, we are still -- gene autry, we are still grappling over the same issues. the people need to say to the government, let's stop paying taxes and maybe they will start doing their jobs. there is -- the taxes are their payment from us. this is our government, not theirs. as far as obama being in michigan for the ford situation, if you had looked on channel two news, they had showed a man that said the workers were not even

invited. he did not even ask the workers. stop looking at the so-called leaders, the people, and start stepping down to our neighborhoods, the people that actually do the jobs for the united states of america, and start listening to us. host: do you give the president credit for the auto industry coming back? caller: pardon? host: do you give the president credit for the auto industry coming back? caller: not really, not really. because you see, me being from michigan -- i'm actually from california, but i have lived in michigan for 16 years. michigan has the problem of hiding a lot of situations. they are very good at that. the democrats and republicans here are really smokescreens. what he needs to do and what his people need to do, like i said,

come to the people who actually work. the uaw had that that they did not invite the people that actually work on these cars -- the uaw had said that they did not invite the people that actually work on these cars. so he could not really hear the truth. what is happening is that these large industries middle-class managers or whatever, our government loses -- listens to them and not the actual workers. host: this is "usa today" about the president's visit to detroit yesterday. take a look at what he told the audience in detroit. [video clip] >> i was telling the detroit news, what is it like when you are making this decision? i've got to tell you, it was not popular vote up even in michigan it was not popular.

they did a poll and in michigan it was like, only 10% in favor. and you know, you don't have to be a genius political analyst tuesday 10% is not very high. [laughter] and look, it was not on my to-do list when i ran for president. i was not expecting to have to do this. but i ran not just to do the popular think about the easy things, but the right things. [applause] host: president obama in detroit is saying that saving the auto industry was the right thing to do. in that speech he said -- he excluded any mention of the republican congress. he

from "usa today" about the president's speech yesterday. also the "wall street journal" has this story that the gop picks asked muster referring to two of the nominees. republicans on capitol hill telling the "wall street journal" that both of them are likely to be approved in the senate. hearings will begin for ms. lynch in late january or february. and mr. mccain said mr. carter's hearing could occur in february which is the earliest time his health could allow it. mr. carter had back surgery last month. that is from "the wall street

journal" this morning. back to your calls. buzz, a republican in pennsylvania. good morning to you. caller: stop laying him. -- playing him. that gives me the heebie-jeebies. i have a lot of confidence in republican leadership. they will be fighting an uphill battle, and fighting the liberal media and democrats all the way. a prime example is begin a millbank column that you referenced earlier, as well as -- the dana milbank's column that you referenced earlier, as well as, i don't know if anyone is watching what is happening on the keystone pipeline in the house. just watch that and it will tell you everything you need to know. republicans, i think it guy is -- the guys name is carver. he was just spot on. every time he was asked a

question, he answered it with a smile on his face and fullback -- full facts. he shot down everything the democrats threw at him in their response to the opposition of the pipeline. i think it that is going to be. host: if you saw yesterday's hearing, i don't know if you care to watch another one today over on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. the senate will be debating the keystone xl pipeline. "washington times" with this headline, that the nebraska court is set to rule on the route of the keystone pipeline.

that is from the "washington times" this morning. another issue on capitol hill is new regulations on coal power plants. the epa announcing that it will delay a rule. and the obama administration say on wednesday -- that from the "washington times" as well. samantha in ohio, hi. you are on the air. what are your thoughts about congressional leaders on capitol hill? caller: i just want to say i'm very saddened by the democrats as well as the republicans. with the supreme court ruling

that a corporation could be considered a person. i don't think we as individual voters will stand a chance -- really stand a chance. it is just very sad. corporations and lobbyists already control so much of our decision-making, and with that it almost makes me want to not vote, but i can't do that. host: don in california democratic collar. what do you think about nancy pelosi from california? caller: i think she is great. but then i know the other side, which has been in power since forever, they are going to take over and everything's going to go haywire. and you know, this white supremacy, which has been in existence since the 70's is going to -- hello? host: we are listening.

caller: i can hardly hear. host: we are listening. caller: the whites premises going to take over and is going to rule just like it's been since 70 a.d. when it romans kick the real jews which are the blacks in america, out. and it's been that way ever since. host: jim in california, what do you make of the democratic leadership? caller: i mostly like leadership -- the leadership, but the tone in washington, dcs will it -- in washington dc as well as the capitals of many other states have become very poor, in that most of our politicians are not governing. they are catering to their donors. until we get rid of big money in politics our country is turning into a plutocracy where it is

controlled by the wealthy and a few. host: we will leave the conversation there. but before i move on i want to show another quick headline for you, and that is, from the "wall street journal" that the obama administration will announce a new plan to trim costs of some mortgages.

president obama will be announcing that in phoenix on thursday. coming up next, we will talk to jim himes, vice chair of the coalition and one of the authors of dodd frank. and then later, douglas a given -- douglas aiken over the cost of 2014. we will be right back. ♪ [video clip] >> friends, colleagues countrymen, especially the people of ohio's eighth congressional district, thank

you for sentiment here. and let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. [applause] >> today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon, 13 for the first time , and a new republican majority accepted its responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work awaits. we know many important opportunities await as well. >> follow the gop led congress and see the new members. the best access is on c-span television, c-span radio and www.c-span.org. new congress, best access, on c-span. >> this sunday on q and a author declare talks about the groundbreaking 1915 film "birth

of a nation," it's the fiction of civil -- of former slaves after the civil war, and efforts to prevent the movie's release. >> part two of the movie, which is after the war reconstruction, that's really the heart of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks are just appalled by the portrayal of freed slaves. this is a scene showing what happens when you give former slaves the right to vote, the right to be elected, the right to govern. it is a scene in the south carolina legislature were the first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage. because again, black men are solely interested in pursuing and having white women. ♪

>> authored take layer on the controversial story behind "the birth of a nation" said a night at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span skew a day. "washington journal" continues. host: congressman jim himes is at our table to take your questions democrat from connecticut, vice chair of the new coalition and he also serves on financial services and intelligence over in the house. let's begin with action on the house floor yesterday. this is the "washington times" this morning. four months after they vowed to tweak the law they voted on it

yesterday. how did you vote? guest: it was the second day of the congress was very strong republican control. you had the failure of the bill on the floor, which was odd to my procedurally. this was a bill that basically took 10 or 11 -- i think tweaks is probably the right word. they had things that had been debated and actually passed him as the article points out come in the last congress. minor adjustments to dodd frank. dodd frank, for example, it is derivatives regulations that anyone who uses a derivative not just banks, but oil companies, farmers, will recall the end-users, these are the people that use derivatives to protect themselves against let's take a month movements in the price of grain or oil, they would have to do something called post margin. that is, put up money to make sure that if there derivatives -- if they're derivative becomes less valuable, it would be ok. for a long time we have talked

about not making the end-users post margin. that was one thing that did not receive a lot of bipartisan support -- that did receive a lot of bipartisan support but yesterday interestingly, did not. i cannot extend why the republicans let it fail on the floor, but the atmosphere is very different. there is a strong movement out there that any adjustment to dodd frank of any variety is "gutting dodd frank" and it's a bad idea. that prevent us from looking at this very large legislation which i helped write and and in support of and say, look, we got a couple of things wrong here and we should think about tweaking it. we are not in the congress in the frame of mind where we can get that done these days. host: you voted yes. guest: i voted yes on the legislation. host: you were one of just a few democrats to do so. guest: one of 35 but in the last congress, that number was

something like 75. yes, there were some oaks that look at this and thought differently about it. host: here is a tweet from elizabeth warren. she said, great work nancy pelosi and maxine waters and house democrats to block the gop from delaying the vocal role for the biggest wall street banks. guest: that is a bit of a mischaracterization. i was here yesterday how this is repealing the book role, and ending the volcker rule. and it gets boring quickly but in reality what this did -- and it's important that we focus on what this actually did rather than ron brushed slogans. in the loan, -- in the rule, there is a collateralized loan process, a pool of loans that banks or others have made two companies, just all businesses and other companies -- too small businesses and other companies, they have to get rid of them because they can no longer own them. this legislation just gave them

another two years in which to get rid of these clo's. they are a very small number of the number of securities out there. you got two more years to get rid of them. i'm a very big fan of the vocal role and i think this is a good idea. this fell into the cap -- of the volcker rule and i think this is a good idea. this fell into the category of a tweak rather than a big change host:. -- a big change. host: those that are rallying against wall street and anything that might benefit them, and then those like yourself, maybe those that see a need for wall street and our economy? guest: there are always tensions within the democratic party. it is the strength of the democratic party. come look at the democratic party on the floor. you will see lots of women

latinos, african-americans straight people, gay people. we are immensely diverse and that is our strength. yes, there is different is of opinion about financial regulation. my own view is anybody of regulation, whether we are talking by how clean our air and water is can how fast we can drive on the roads, we find our balance. we need financial services. a lot of people are still angry at them. we need then to never do what they did in 2008 when the financial industry to down the economy, but we also need them out there making mortgages and lending to small businesses and providing people opportunities to save for college. my point of view is that we should seek that balance. there are people out there who say -- you know, many hundreds of pages of dodd frank should not in any way, shape, or form be touched. and if it is touched, it is probably to the advantage of the

banks. that is a fair point of view. dodd frank is still rolling out and we are still looking to see how it will affect the industry. but with every form of regulation, we think that balance, rather than continuing what is understandably still an emotional debate for severity people who feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today, -- an emotional debate. there are many people who feel the banks got bailed out and are doing just fine today. countrywide mortgages, no prosecutions, there are many people who feel the banks got away with it. that creates emotion and it's difficult to seek the balanced regulation of that industry. host: is the democratic party alienating wall street? and does the party need wall street in order to win elections? guest: what the party needs is the support of the american people in order to win elections. i've spent some time talking to our political leadership and we look at what happened last

november, and there is no conclusion other than the fact that we did not get quite enough people on board as far as taking a majority. in fact, much the opposite. that tends to be the discussion. job one is to figure out how to make sure this industry, which love it or hate it, is critical to the health of the american economy that it is vibrant and innovating and providing capital to america's families and the is, but that it is a lot safer than 2008. host: as you know, elizabeth warren speaking before labor groups yesterday. i want to show you a little bit of what she had to say and get your reaction will stop [video clip] -- your reaction. [video clip] >> primus the whole republican party and if we're going to be honest, too many democrats, are talking about the government and calls for deregulation. it all sounded good, but what it was really about was tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant

international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do. turning them loose to read the market and reduce competition. turning them loose to outsource more jobs. turning them loose to load up on war risks and then hide behind taxpayer guarantees. turning them loose to sell more mortgages and credit swaps that she did american families. in short, turning them loose to do whatever juiced short-term profit, even at the expense of working families. host: elizabeth warning yesterday. jim himes, what you make of what she had to say? guest: that was a pretty good description of the lead up to 2008, to the financial meltdown. she definitely rifles are there was strong bipartisan consensus -- she is absolutely right. there was strong bipartisan consensus against regular in the

financial industry. in fact, there was deregulation. taking away the glass-steagall regulations that had been around since the 1930's. and because of that, you saw unbelievably toxic mortgages. you saw something that was insane, which is the entire derivatives market unregulated. and that led us to aig. i am large, elizabeth warren and her description of what happened before 2008 is accurate. senator warren suggests that the intent was to allow for short-term profitability of the banks. you think of the people in the bipartisan consensus back in the 1990's, and i would be a little less hesitant to suggest that they were acting that "evilly" back then. they thought if you deregulate these industries will thrive and we want our industries to thrive.

but that was a mistake at the time, no question about it. host: does that hurt any chance of now former secretary of state hillary clinton running in 2016? guest: i don't recall exactly where she was, a senator after that deregulation in the 1990's. she was the first lady at the time. but for all of us in public service, -- her rock vote comes up. all of us have a record in public service comes up -- that comes up and that is fair fodder for the next election. host: we are talking to jim himes, in his fourth term. he resents the fourth district in connecticut. and before that, worked for goldman sachs. democratic allcaller go ahead. caller: thank you for your

comments and your remarks and your beliefs. can you do us a favor? can you please explain to the american people the two parts of the house one part dynamic scoring, and the other about the purity disability. i think the american people do not understand what the republicans are talking about and they need to know because this will really affect us. i appreciate your. happy new year. >> if we're going to do dynamic scoring, we better below the caffeine this morning. actually, it is a great question. thank you for asking. this will escape notice. dynamic scoring. anytime congress does anything that affects the deficit the congressional budget office, a group of nonpartisan referees,

these are not republicans or democrats, they calculate what it will cost the government over time and how it will affect the government. it is really important. we want to know what things will cost and how they are paid for. traditionally, this has always been done not using dynamics touring. dynamic scoring says, let's look at how it affects the economy as a whole. there is a theory that if you cut taxes, the economy will grow. this gets partisan. fewer taxes are in fact better for the economy. they are also essential for funny our military and schools so there is a balance. but if you cut tax a lot, the economy will grow and you get better test revenue. history has not risen that to be the case. the idea has never been shown to be true, but the republicans have said, let's take into account the idea that the economy will grow and therefore

maybe we will collect more taxes. my objection to this, and economists debate this stuff, my objection is it seems to me, the republicans count themselves a conservative arty, that we ought to be as conservative it -- as possible in estimating how much this will be an effect on a budget there are going to dynamic scoring is not a conservative way to do a bit. the reason is nobody ever really knows what the effect on the overall economy, $17 trillion worth of economy it is very hard to predict what it will be. what they find is they get answers all over the map. the point is, why do an analysis of answers all over the map, we are likely to cherry it whatever answer. it is just a much less conservative way and it opens up the door to things that republicans like, like the idea that if we got -- just cut taxes

enough we would get revenue clear that has not historically been shown to be an accurate idea. to give you an example to follow up, let's imagine they come up with an idea to/everyone's in him test it in half. it would certainly create massive deficits. we saw that during the bush tax cuts. they're clearly would be if we cut taxes like that, the economy, instead of growing at 2.5%, it will grow at 3.5%. then you've got more gdp, therefore more tax revenue. they say, let's count the additional tax revenue from a bigger it economy. the problem is that is extremely hard to predict that makes for a much more uncertain estimate. ok. dynamic scoring. [laughter] host: in texas, a republican. caller: i am late on my comment

but i'm talking about football coaches who do a terrible job get hired there it we have guys both republicans and democrats who did a terrible job in the last two years leading their parties and they get hired again. they do not, they break the likes of anybody who votes against them. i think back to world war ii and we won and what did we do, we run away. we will be your friend we'll make sure you can recover and get back to table economy, and we did that. here with republicans, especially john boehner. if you vote against him, he will break your legs. it is disgusting. the same thing apparently occurs for the democrats. obviously harry reid did a terrible job in a less two years. guest: he is probably referring to the fact that people who nst them did not end

up on committees anymore. politics is transactional to some degree, and if you get in the face of the leader am a there is likely a price to be paid. it is not just politics, but any human endeavor. i like the way brian is thinking about. i watched the movie lincoln again and after the civil war certainly the most painful variants we have ever been through -- you think we have got polarization now, lincoln's in all grill adjust list with malice for all. that helped to bind the nation at the time. i do think watched and would function better maybe not so much punishing the guys who rebelled against him, but if we could remember, stop attacking each other's motives, stop using the more extreme language. you hear a lot of moral language around here are dynamic scoring shows just how bad the republicans are here at look. there is a debate about just

about everything out there and there should be. we can make the dialogue a little bit, and more focused on the issues and we will probably be more functional around here. >> leadership within the demo attic party. the headline is jim himes says wall street highs prevent him from leading the campaign committee. can you explain? >> you know, this is largely speculation, because photons the campaign arms of the two parties is the position of the leadership here this is reference to the fact i was one of three or four people rumored to have been considered. the leader chose my good friend at the end of the day which i think was terrific. but yes there was speculation that because i represent a district very heavy in financial services, because i was one of the few former bankers on

capitol hill and i took an interest in finding the balance which means i tend not to view bank regulations in terms of good versus evil. i view it as something very technical where we should find a balance. there were those who said, let's put it this way, there is a guy who will sort of not enter into a very aggressive approach to the banks, a more emotion laden approach to the bank. i think that is the origin of that story. at the end of the day, i never came down here to read a party or spent most of my time on politics. we have got a lot of issues in this country to deal with. they are lengthy. the opportunity to continue working on this issues as opposed to working on the politics is, i think, a good thing. >> you are the chair of the democratic coalition cared what is that and what are you pushing for? less a group of 50 democrats in the house who we tend to be

maybe on the younger end and we come out of communities, we spend time in silken valley and are interested in things like what do we do to advance innovation in the country? it sometimes gets technical. the funding of venture capital. all of these things going to creating google and uber. innovative businesses there we tend to be interested in all the things we can do to help the entrepreneurial growth oriented part of our economy, which is of course what really provides opportunity in the future. >> are you the new blue dollars? >> no. we are a caucus in the democratic party. the blue dogs tended to be largely southerners, austin more socially conservative than the

norm. i would not draw a comparison with the blue dogs. if we agree on one thing, we tend to be sort of focus on what leads to more entrepreneurialism and innovation. that is probably where we are most comfortable. >> back to calls, steve, texas. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion for republicans and them that, that everyone one of them should have to serve about its month with enough money to exist to months and be spread out through the population, from the ghettos up to the middle-class, and have them go out and try to look for a job and try to maintain a living to where they could pay for the insurance on their cars and groceries, housings, and every, and take that and make

them stay there six months, whether they get a job or not, with no financial help what the lever or anybody, and they might did a realization of what the american people are going to. guest: steve makes a wonderful point for a whole bunch of reasons. the trip -- the president is making a fair point that the economy is doing a lot better than it was doing in 2009 when he took office. what he is not saying quite so much is, and i think he would technology this, that economic recovery has not lifted all the -- all boats. wages have not gone up in a very long time. i think steve is right on. those of us fortunate enough to serve our constituents, we by definition have a job and a decent pay package. all too often, i think it is easy to forget where you came from. one nice thing about the house of representatives is it draws

on people from all backgrounds. we have got multimillionaires and folks who do not have a time to their name. executives, lawyers. steve is right. there is no substitute for making sure that you do not just read about the pain out there, but that you feel it and act accordingly. >> surely, a democratic caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i have got a comment about the keystone pipeline. you see the trucks lined up, the spice it were those fights american made? the second point i would like to ask, if the pipeline ran from mexico up to canada, -- >> thank you. i do not know the answer to that question whether the plates are

american made but would get used to build the keystone pipeline. i sure hope so, but i do not know. the keys -- the keys zone pipeline does not run from the good to canada. i think what surely was trying to get at is what if we do not get to use that oil. the oil being taking down through the united states to where it can be refined and perhaps exported. look the interesting thing about the keystone debate is that it has been going on for about five years and in that five years, gasoline and oil prices are today dramatic, world changing decreases in the price of oil. a good thing for most americans. we have very expensive gasoline where i come from in connecticut, but it is probably down the dollar 50 to two dollars. it means they're out there spending it in helping our economy recover.

one of the things that really cheap oil will do is it will probably slow our transition toward cleaner and more sustainable energy. the fact that we're coming energy independent in the united states, we are using domestic gas and oil that it is cheaper that is a really good thing for the country. it is funny what happens when gas gets cheap, people by bigger cars and then several years later, they find themselves back at four dollars a gallon and hurting. i were a cheap energy will slow the progress we made in the country toward more clean and sustainable energy sources. host: the house is expected to consider the energy bill today. yes or no? guest: i am a no on short-circuiting the regulatory process. what congress is saying, and it has become, let's just say yes to it. congress should not be looking at individual projects like the

keystone pipeline and saying, clearly this should go forward. there is a reason for the regulatory process. a lot of oil is moving across very sensitive areas. important wilderness areas in the united dates. running this massive hype line through a lot of communities in the process of those communities weighing in is a good process and it will yield an answer of yes or no. i oppose 430 five people in the house of representatives, many of whom know absolutely nothing about the area of what we talk about here, making that decision on behalf of the regulator spirit i am likely to be a no on this particular effort not because necessarily keystone is a bad idea, but because i do not happen to be a pipeline expert nor do i live in the area affected. i think regulatory process should run its course. host: texas, rocky, republican. caller: thank you for your service.

i want to revisit what we were talking about went down on the house floor yesterday. it is incredulous to me that the second day, actually the first day of a full house session that the republican party took up going right back to where we were in 2006 with and derivatives. elizabeth warren is 100% correct on the way she is approaching this wall street issue. i am sad to say i have been a republican for 48 years, and i do not agree with anything that john boehner and mitch mcconnell are trying to do as far as wall street is concerned. we would really appreciate if people would legislate for the people, and not for big corporations. guest: i appreciate what rocky said. having voted in favor of this bill, i would say it is not a gutting of dodd frank, and we can debate whether it was a good

idea or not. rocky's larger point i could not agree with more. at a time where we should be dealing with immigration reform, a very big and challenging topic , when too many americans are still out of work, when we are facing terrorist threats in a very uncertain global situation as we saw in paris yesterday, that the very first thing republicans would do is make what i would characterize as a bunch of changes to our financial services regulation, is in substance a bad idea. as rocky a republican from texas indicates, a terrible political idea. why not deal with issues that politically face americans sitting around the kitchen table, around spurring the economy more around our schools? why not do that? i agree that the fact that was the first substantive bill is

teen. and probably not focus on the problems of day today americans. >> before congress closed its books, there was a large ease of legislation that went through and it also included a provision to what its critics say diluted dodd frank. as he said, you are the author of the legislation. you voted for that. can you explain what happened there and what it could have done? guest: this is part of the overall -- let's step back and remember what we were talking about. we were talking about the budget of the federal government, the spending bill. the fundamental western around that legislation, we could come back to the derivatives, there were very controversial things inserted into the bill on which i think is unfortunate. the fundamental question was were you going to vote for a budget that would for the first time in a long time be a budget

for the federal government, budgets are all too rare on capitol hill or were you going to say no to it and risk one of two things. either a government shutdown or what we call a continuing resolution, let's just keep spending money at the rate we were standing at. i was not willing to vote no on a budget that was an ugly compromise admittedly, but which was a compromise. i have been listening to my constituents for years now saying, go work with the other party and compromise. some people do not like a because you do not get everything you want there is anyway, i was happy to vote for a bill that represented congress coming together to get something done. it was only a year before that the government shutdown for a in days because compromise would not occur. a bunch of eggs were dangled onto the bill which i think was unfortunate. some alteration to derivatives regulation, and there was also an awful increase in the amount

of money that individual amway's could give to the parties taking us again another step in the wrong direction on financial reform. the derivatives they was something that actually received strong bipartisan or word. 17 democrats voted for along with a lot of republicans in congress, which basically said thanks could not buy for their own accounts, but could trade certain derivatives on behalf of their clients that would allow their clients to hedge risk. this was an area i felt was reasonable. and a lot of democrats and republicans thought it was reasonable, that got converted into "the gutting of dodd frank ." that is in no way shape or form true. there are minor changes, but the language immediately becomes this is a complete gutting of dodd frank, which is just not even close to reality. host: los angeles, independent

caller. hello. >> it is interesting you say it is for the constituents, because my understanding, i watched it yesterday, my understanding is that the small things that were for the people is that it was going to actually be larger than it was when it actually almost brought us to our knees in the 80's, was that it was going to be up 10% rather than the smaller percentage that it was and that it almost just completely floored us last time, and then also, that when they actually gave the percentage to the vehicle in the company last time i am sorry, i am a little emotional right now him and i cannot think of you the name, the people, with actually completely worthless stock those people actually lost out

on their retirement and everything, and that the people, the company's, they did not lose anything the actual owners or whatever, but the people who worked, they lost everything and that the wording in these yesterday on the congress floor, the congress that they actually barely shot it down was that they were actually going to increase all of these things and that it would actually not even need our voices to gamble with the people's money. host: i will jump in at that point and have the congressman respond. guest: i am not 100% sure what she was asking. i think she was probably refrain to financial regulation again. just to him him -- just to tie this back, often it is framed as what is good and that for the

banks. the financial service industry trying to do well themselves and make money, but the role in the economy is to provide capital for people to go to school to buy houses for businesses to grow. let's take an example from yesterday. what was probably one of the more controversial areas, and there is reason for controversy said that what we were talking about earlier, basically just fools of loans that people make to that 100 person business, making parts for helicopters or whatever, that the banks should have two more years before they have to get rid of those loans. banks are in the business of making loads, but in this case the rule was that they do not get to make loans on securities. it is a good rule and at the end of the day was weaker than it needed to be, by giving two more years or banks to get rid of this paper, you could argue that makes them more risky.

what we're talking about here, these loans in no way shape or form in any way contributed to the meltdown of 2008, which was largely about mortgages. the banks, they would argue, if they are required to get rid of the loans, it would be harder to make the loans in the first place. that is a legitimate point that may be true. the reason this is interesting is not because it is good or bad for the banks. in some cases it is good in some cases it is bad. the idea is that if uae's that restriction a little bit, it may keep more volume, mori vividly in that lending business, which at the end of the day, the capital goes to the corporations and businesses making car parts and employing americans, and allows them to grow. that is really what is at heart here. host: the vocal rule would do what? guest: it is a very important part of dodd frank which basically says to the banks, you do not get to gamble, you do not

get to invest, if you are a bank, because banks can draw on insurance and the federal reserve window, they are unique businesses. you do not get to gamble, you do not get to go out there and buy stock center of it is in golden anything else, in the expectation that the value of that will go up and you will make honey. it is a very good idea. there are businesses that do that here and hedge funds and asset managers. there are businesses in the business of doing that. inc.'s should not be in that business. that is a good idea. -- and -- banks should not be in that business. that is a good idea. should they get rid of them in six months or one year or four years, whatever the final answer was there. that is what we were talking about. >> all right, indiana, democratic caller, welcome to the conversation. you are on the air with congressman jim himes, democrat of connecticut.

caller: i have been a democrat for 50 years or better. i am 69 years old. i have been a democrat ever since i have been able to vote. i remember when the savings and loan debacle happened. if i read and remember correctly, there was over 700 criminal prosecutions because of that. the wall street bill we had in 2008 and 2009, they had nobody held accountable. i heard you say you was not a blue dog. i do not believe you are a blue dog either. i believe you are a republican disguised as a democrat. you say that vote did not hurt dodd frank. no you're just chipping away a little time until you get back. i do not know why anybody would vote for somebody who would work for goldman sachs because your

interest is big money, big this mess, -- big business, big banks. i will take my answer off the air. guest: look like every other form of regulation, we want to balance our financial regulation. rodney is absolutely right, it is a stain on the history of the country that a meltdown that was our worst than the savings and loan meltdown, where there was accountability for a lot of people who committed fraud in savings and loan, but in this case in 2008, there were no prosecutions. outrageous behavior and no prosecutions. the reason largely was a lot of the awful behavior, remember what happened, mortgages got sold to american families with people knowing these mortgages would never read -- be repaid, and these mortgages, you had an expanding thing. a lot of that behavior at the time was not illegal.

that is the reason for dodd frank. dodd frank did dramatic lee positive things and said to big banks that if the regulators think you're doing dangerous things, they can force you out of the business and break you up if they want to. it gives authority to the federal reserve and other regulators to actually, bear stearns and lehman brothers, nobody at the time new who had the authority to work the businesses out. it is now clear. it created the soup -- the consumer finance protection bureau, a terrific organization out there making sure toxic mortgages never gets old to young families again. it brought this incredibly large and complicated derivatives market into a regulated environment. those are monumental and positive achievements and will make for a safer financial services market. now again, where i disagree with rodney here is, like every other

form of regulation, you name it whether we're talking about speed limits or whether you wear your seatbelts, or the air quality or the water quality you find a balance which protects the american public, but which allows this is to grow and innovate and in this case provide credit to folks who want to buys -- by their houses, and finding that balance will not happen if we say we will not engage in a debate about exactly how we regulate the derivatives market. we need to engage in that debate and it would be helpful if we could without the kinds of personal attacks we can see. if you wander into the debate with anything other than the point of view that banks need to be hammered, that you are not acting in the public interests. i understand why we are where we are. there is still as rodney indicates, a lot of emotion around this. a lot of people including me are angry that there was not sufficient accountability in the

industry. that does not mean we should aggregate our ability to try to regulate this as well. host: is elizabeth warren the best face for the issue? guest: she is terrific. she understands the industry far better than most. in the clip you played, she accurately characterizes what led up to 2008. i think we do need voices in the party pointing out that the industry has a lot of power on l, a lot more power than other industries in many cases but that does not mean we should not be working hard to make sure we balance this regulation. remer there are a lot of entrepreneurs and people going to banks saying, please lend me money so i can retire and send my kids to college. that function is important and we need to make sure it is not

compromised. host: let's go to our line for republicans, jeff in georgia. you're on the air. go ahead. caller: yes. i am enjoying this congressman any sound like a decent guy. i do not know if he is familiar with this website, but a great article today, 10 things that proceeded the last financial crisis are happening again. i wanted to point out three of these, which are we -- which we are all and join, the oil has crashed under $50 a barrel. osi met have it was way before the 2008 crash. -- the last time that happened was before the two thousand eight crash. before the crash of 2008, which has happened again. to jim, a different picture is painted in almost everyone else on the hill and the financial industry apparently, and he thinks everything will work out but that is just not happening and everybody needs to get off

the kool-aid and read those articles and i would love to hear your comment on that. >> thank you. i have never associated the crash of 2008 with the energy market. the meltdown we saw in 2008 was clearly related to the housing market. god awful toxic mortgages got sold, tanks acted irresponsibly. to be fair, they were not the only ones. the regulators missed the boat. all kinds of things i do not think were related to the energy market area as someone who helped write dodd frank and who has defended dodd frank strongly, dodd frank you could probably criticize and say it is not perfect. it is not perfect. and that is coming from someone who helped write it. it will also probably not forever regulate financial meltdowns. we have been watching financial meltdowns since there was a financial industry, going back to the bubble and hundreds of years ago. it took very important steps

forward, though, in terms of making the housing market more rational and regulating derivatives, doing all of the things we talked about. while i cannot tell you that trouble in the financial markets will never happen again and nobody can a that, what we can say about dodd frank is that it took off the table most of the irresponsible if not all of the year responsible behavior that led to 2008. what we worry about now is not a repeat of 2008 but what is the next bubble? second 2000, it was internet stocks. everybody had an idea for a company worth $2 billion and that bubble deflated their it is not so much 2008 we're worried about, but the next bullet we do not see that we should be worried about their it >> dan, an independent. hello there. >> good morning and thank you for having me on. i'm glad to follow up that last phone call. i am in that guy's boat. it feels like we get a lot of stories out of washington, and

when you open the screen a little bit and actually do a little homework, there is a whole other world out there. i have got a couple of important questions. one, jim, were you at goldman sachs in 2008? >> no. i left goldman sachs 12 years ago in 2002 to spend five years working for an affordable housing nonprofit route looking to build affordable housing in our lower income area of the country. caller: i ask that you probably do not need to do a little homework, because it seems as though most of the people there are being blackmailed not to speak or something. but on september 11 in 2008, in the morning, there was a run in the u.s. treasury, and this is confirmed i ben bernanke, paul

kanjorski said it live on c-span the morning what happened. nancy pelosi just repeated it when she was upset on the house talking about the budget resolution that passed, the only way that this attack could have happened on the people's banks, the u.s. treasury, is from the big ask themselves. ok? so our treasury was attacked on september 11, 2008 there it >> we are running out of time with the congressman, so go ahead and jump in at this point. have you heard the comments before? >> any number, since 2008, there have been any number of problems in the market which were not necessarily related what happened in 2008, the run on the treasury, i do not recall those specific circumstances, but we have the crash, we remember

that. the market dipped hundreds of points and was driven by the automatic trading we see a lot now. i am not in any way implying that the banks behavior has changed utterly and completely and now they're acting fine, we saw the libor scandal, where banks were manipulating the libor rate, we see insider trading. it is still an industry like any other where people behave have a. >> let me add to that this tweet that says, are you concerned that city added 9 trillion to its last quarter? >> there is a difference between the libor scandal and an increase in swaps business. people need to remember that derivatives is a scary word and it brought down aig and some of those to riverdance were so confident awful that nobody understood them, derivatives are also what farmers use to smooth out the costs the business is used to smooth out energy costs. the folks selling things in

japan used to not take the and risk. in addition to be dangerous stuff, it is important to the functioning of our economy. my larger point was that dodd frank is a huge step in the right direction, making a lot of behavior not a legally 2008 illegal and therefore it is not happening today. the lesson is that -- not that everything is fine and we do not need to be vigilant. there is a reason we have the federal reserve and this whole alphabet soup of regulators. that is a very important and very potentially dangerous industry that needs to be regulated and watched carefully. that is what we should be striving for. host: congressman jim himes democrat of connecticut, thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up next, we will talk with the former congressional budget office are douglas holtz-eakin. we will talk about a new cost of

regulation in 2014. later, we will open up the phone line for your calls. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span two, saturday night at 10:00, cass sunstein. and we talked with recent -- with -- on american history on c-span3 saturday, on lectures and history, anderson university professor brian turk uses abraham lincoln's life to understand the views of white americans on race and slavery before and during the civil war.

sunday a discussion on margaret's legacy. on a birth control movement. let us know about what you think . e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> friends colleagues, countrymen, especially the people of ohio's eight congressional district, thank you for sending me here. let's welcome all of their families to what we all know to be a truly historic day. [applause] today is an important day for our country.

many senators took the oath this afternoon. 13 for the first time, and a new republican majority accepted its responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us and we know a lot of hard work awaits and we know many important opportunities await as well. >> follow the gop led congress and see the new members. the best axis is on c-span television, c-span radio, and c-span.org. on c-span. >> washington journal continues. >> we are back left douglas holtz-eakin, now president of american action form. you spoke about the cost of regulation in 2014. what did you find? >> we look at all of the regulations we find through the agencies.

we track on a daily basis and in the process of imposing regulations, we also give you some information. they try to guess how much it would cost you, me, and little businesses to comply with regulations, how many hours they would take to comply with regulations. we added up and find out that for the final rules we are $18 billion for additional costs on the u.s. economy for 2014 and this comes on the heels of many years that look like that. i like to think of it as a fairly hidden tax increase. you always ask that question of what it will do to the economy and is it worth it. it will never resolve the question of it -- if it is worth it. people disagree with it and the benefits for the country, for example, low soulful or -- sulfur fuels so, you know, it

is important, i think, to demonstrate the cost. if you do not know how much it costs, think about it. >> what are you talking about an out of what agency department are you coming from? guest: we are trying to cover the financial regulations in dodd frank. we cover the cost of regulations of the formal care at coming out of hhs, a lot of things for power plants, low sulfur fuels for cars. there is a lot that goes on in the government. the american action form staff just to do a phenomenal job. host: how does that compare to the bush administration? guest: they had big regulatory

years largely after the taxes after september 11. they were national security related, the patriot act, very costly and intrusive. there was a spike that went down a little bit and now they are back. these are far more on the environmental front, far more on the health front. host: can regulations be good for the economy? guest: they are meant to protect people and produce safety, but they are costly. if you measured the economy as how much we produce and grow, they generally have a negative impact. but they're good for people on balance. host: elizabeth warren yesterday was speaking before labor groups and about regulation. i want to get your response to what she had to say. >> pretty much the whole republican party and too many democrats, if we are going to be

honest, have talked about the evils of the government and called for deregulation. it all sounded good. what it is really about is tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do what they want to do. turning them loose to rig the market, turn them loose to outsource more jobs, turn them loose to load up on more risks and then hide behind tax -- taxpayer jet -- taxpayer guaranteed. turning them loose, in short, to do what ever juiced short-term profit, even if it came at the expense of working families. guest: i would love to know the list of things she is talking about. a common theme of hers, it is

very emotional and plays to the populist times, but if you look back at the bush administration what was the major deregulation she is referring to? it was the accounting act, a major regulatory push in the aftermath of the enron meltdown. i am mystified. i understand where she's coming from emotionally, but i do not understand the facts she is 22. there was not a large financial services deregulation. no specific trade initiative would change what our largest competitor firms were. it sounds good, but where is the beef? host: you also look at industries impacted by regulations in 2014. what are they and what does that mean for the economy? guest: you can imagine if you think of the heavy impetus of the house gas regulations, you

can go straight to electric generation and the energy sources behind that, whether it is: -- is coal, natural gas. you can do autoregulation, move into manufacturing fuel, you have to change the way cars are made, energy sectors. like most government policies the attention is often focused on where they hit, but they spread through the economy. host: we were just showing reviewers the chart you put together on industries, energy and environment. blue represents the cost in millions. you're talking about 80 million. and then you have got the cost in ours as well. guest: the forms to comply. host: what is the industry saying about this? what do they do with that cost?

they pass it to consumers? guest: yes. if you are any small firm or any enterprise, you really have three choices. you could take that cost and pass it along to consumers and get the money from them or you can pay their workers less essentially cover the cost that way, or you can get the return to your investors. bank loans, or it comes out of your return, the prophet as an entrepreneur. it has to come from somewhere. republicans have generally pushed for two things fearless have a review process to make sure -- some of this would give

them a bigger say in this and put the regulatory process in the same democratic process as other laws as taxes and things. you can imagine doing this putting the budget regulations. we have a principle budget for how much we spend and tax. we can have a budget for how much we regulate and essentially say, you hit the $8 billion in total regulatory cost and the agency. if you want to do more, let's look at something old and taken off the books. that is something the u.s. does not do very well. we do some initial screening for what they cost and what are the benefits, but old regulations just disappear from the site. we do not go back and look at them and ask the question again, is this a good idea? we look around the globe at the other countries britain and european countries, and they are big initiatives typically in the european union, to look at regulations and recognize that

some of them might need to go. something they might want to get on board with and do as well. >> a new report out i the american action forum about the new cost of regulations. these are the states impacted by the cost of regulations. the darker states, texas and california, those are the ones that see higher costs in the millions of dollars. peter is first in new york, a republican. hello, peter, go ahead. >> what i will say is very important for your audience to hear. i hope you give me enough time. i've been waiting a long time to speak to you regarding the crisis of 2007. professor philip slagle, who worked for president bush, he told me to speak to you about this because you wrote extensively on the financial

crisis. i read the financial crisis inquiry report. i actually spoke to peter wallace in, and i asked him a question he could not answer and it was said that you could possibly answer. i want to read you this e-mail real the clay. i said, i watched your appearance on the washington journal this morning and was very impressed by your knowledge and candor on the subject discussed. during your interview, you touched upon the course of the financial crisis and that a good reference book would be the financial crisis inquiry report. i read the report and i agree with you that the democratic majority was more interested in diverting blame away from themselves and onto the banks. i also agree the rebuttal to the majority written by peter wallace and was more accurate in its analysis of whom and what government policies were rest lost before the collapse. i found a large omission of responsibility regarding the bush administration, the action of the looming problem mr. wallace fared -- failed to

adjust in his rebuttal. why in 2003, when he went to the banking committee, had to voice his great concern about the financial stability of fannie mae and freddie mac, and being told by the committee all is well in those ordered his secretary to reduce mandates replaced on them by the former secretary andrew cuomo. during the clinton administration -- host: peter, we have got to get to other calls. can you get to the point? caller: this is very important because both sides like to put the blame somewhere. the problem is during the clinton administration, under the community reinvestment act, subprime mortgages were only 3% of all the mortgages that fannie and freddie were authorizing. under the clinton administration by 1999, it went to 55%. host: we will take your point there. douglas holtz-eakin.

guest: thank you for reading that. congress appointed a commission whose job it was to describe the roots of financial crisis that gripped the nation in 2008 and 2009. the committee did produce a final report. the commission did not come to a census -- a consensus. there was a majority report and i co-authored. we wrote a dissent and i think the key in our dissent is that we are wary of simplistic explanations. this was a large income kitty global event. it consisted of overregulation and under regulation. this certainly has monetary policy pieces to it and you would be surprised. we had housing crises in new zealand, and housing crisis in the united kingdom and france

and the united states. a completely different regulatory environment. it is not easy to just draw a line from the regulation of subprime's to the housing crisis. and i think there is little this new that we originated an enormous number of data mortgages in the united states. that was an important part of the decline in facing that i think has been a proper focus of people cents. i worry about slippage on that front, where we go back to you really actively trying to push people into homes, a policy under both republicans and democrats for a long time. in the process you pressure the financial sector to give people loans who are not prepared to actually pay those loans and are not prepared to be homeowners. there really is a time when you have accumulated enough financial wherewithal, and that is the right time, not before. >> president obama is set to

announce on thursday a new initiative on housing. what do you know about it? >> just a reduction in the fees a mortgage borrower would have to pay to the government. those fees cover a guarantee of their mortgage. you need that guarantee, if you're are not qualified by other standards. you cannot put down 20% the way you normally would. you go and you say, in case i do not pay for my mortgage, and reducing the fee for that taxpayer backstop strikes me as a bad idea. it is the kind of thing that went on under a regular basis for andrew cuomo, when he was the secretary, push people into houses make it easier trying to manage the housing market, and it ended quite badly and i think we should try to avoid that again. host: the house put forth legislation that would have delayed rules for certain loans

by banks? >> what went on mechanically, the mechanics of inside baseball that went on, they tried to pass a bill they had passed it is a with a lot of democratic support, they did it on the calendar, which means this is a noncontroversial bill, we will put it up there and let the senate do it here it the senate has not done anything and surprised it turned out to be controversial this time. they need two thirds. just fly through. on the merits of it, i am not a big fan of the vocal role. i understand the position that says you do not want tanks that says using the taxpayer backstop's. there is no evidence the proprietary trading of large banks contributed. a lot went wrong but that is not one of them.

the same way i get nervous about the heavy emphasis on the derivative regulation because there was only one real derivative involved in the financial crisis, the one that aig that had more to do with the fact that aig was absolutely incompetent in running its business. i will never forget, to my chagrin, listening to the testimony of aig executives and having them say, we did not know if the value went down. we had to come up with cash. how could we not know? the us -- if stupidity was illegal, they would be in jail. host: dorothy is next, a democratic caller. hello. caller: i want to talk about electric cars. i have to say something about

housing. what happened is that deregulation, i do not know what the republicans were trying to do, but the democrats were not trying to deregulate so much as they were trying to say people can buy homes. they took it upon themselves to give loans to any and everybody because they were going to give that money back. they also trick people into giving because they said interest rate would be one amount, and at times up to it or on so when they could, at one point they could not. it is -- just what they wanted to do. they did that. nobody forced them. tell me that the democrats and republicans everyday alone, they

do not have jobs or do not have a way to pay. i need you to tell me that. host: ok. guest: there were a number of things that went wrong. some of it was just flat out as you said, a bad behavior on the part of lenders. there were a lot of state regulated non-bank lenders in the business of making loans. everyone got in the business of mortgage loans at one point. there are clear examples of fraud and clear prosecutions on that front. other things, i think you made a great point. if you look at the housing prices in the midwest, they never saw the big housing bubble. we did not see those prices collapsing. in that, the economies struggled and people used second loans as a way to manage your finances and they relied on home equity loans and when they lost their

jobs in 2008, they could not make it go. that was one part of the housing crisis. very different than the experience in california and arizona and nevada and florida where the prices going up people were buying houses and investments they could not really afford an account on the crib -- the prices going up, and there, you had a different phenomenon. i do not think you can look at the mortgage experience from 2001-2009, and think of anything collectively than that this is a big failure. this was not one kind of problem. i think that made fixing it even harder. host: chuck, you are next independent caller. caller: i am so proud of you. i watched you grow up when i see you mind -- as my own daughter. fine individual serving the country. on the other hand -- guest: very flattering.

i assume that is greta. caller: i am talking about greta. i watched her before she even got married. i am very proud of you, greta. host: well, thank you. caller: anyway, all of this stuff, being a working man all of my life, i went through this housing debacle through the building industry. thank god i was able to build my own home and save myself a lot of money. i end up selling that big house but i was wondering the whole time when i was holding hundreds of homes, and i am watching us go on and i'm going, my god this is so wrong here. i'm going, where are these people going to come up with a money? these are young people. they cannot all be doctors or lawyers but they weren't. i feel so sorry for these people

that got trapped losing their jobs. finance a house with the job they __ when the judge kept disappearing and disappearing, it is almost like a government plan this just to collapse the middle class. host: douglas, you can weigh in on what you heard from that caller. guest: we talk most of the time about the government had, but there is the average american and how they look at their finances, hhow they look at their future. and i think we saw a very big change after this event. the conventional wisdom was, you cannot go wrong buying a house. it is we want to put your savings. it is where you are going to get your retirement. how you are going to borrow to send your kids to college. i am not sure people by that anymore. we are also seeing a lot less

interest in homeownership among the younger americans. they haven't jumped in and the way that many people expected them. it has been one of the reasons the housing market has recovered more slowly. again, it is not a crazy thing. if you need shelter, you can rent your shelter and be more flexible and where you live. so i think we have seen a big change on the personal side of this. host: in california, dave, a republican. caller: hi, there. you know, our country was founded on the principle of limited government because our founding fathers understood that the bigger, more intrusive government loses freedom. i think that they never consider this principle when they pass laws. the problem is every new law or regulation takes away a tiny bit of our freedom. while its new law or regulation

does, in and of itself, take away our freedom, the accumulation of hundreds or even thousands do take away our freedom. and sometimes, these laws take away a big chunk of our freedom. for example, obama care has taken away our choices of doctors, hospitals, even health insurance. so i think in order to prevent the steady erosion of our individual liberties, we need to adopt a policy that for every new law or regulation that is passed, we have to repeal an old one. host: let's take that. guest: this is among the things that have happened. there is a one in, two out rule that was implemented in england. those are ways to force the discussion and say, you know, what are we going to do?

let's limit the total amount of a literary burden that we place on the private sector. from an economist point of view, it is never the right thing to say, okay, so the private sector isn't doing this right. the government should do it. basically both the government and the private sector have their strengths and weaknesses. if you put in place these review techniques, you should get to that discussion. we're not going to get perfection. host: on twitter __ as of last february, the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation maintained that aca coverage provisions will result in lower costs for the federal government? guest: lower cost for the federal government? i'm not sure what he means. we're going to spend about $2 trillion under the aca, so it can be that. there is the hope that come with coverage aand federal

spending, you will get preventative care, you will get earlier intervention and very costly cases, and this will turn out to be less expensive down the road for medicare and things like that. host: another treat for you. you have served as director. doug, why are the republicans in congress so much in a rush to get rid of the cbo director? guest: by law, the director does not make judgments or advice. his term is up. he has done a superb job. she has done a great job as director, but, as happens when peter was appointed when the democrats took power, i was appointed in 2003 by republicans __ when a party controls both houses of the congress __ the cbo director is appointed by both houses __

they like to put their stamp on things. so i don't think it has anything to do with doug. host: tim. beaver falls. hi, tim. caller: hi. my son bought a house in baltimore and before 2008 __ when he told me what he paid for it, i was like, what are you talking about? what i'm trying to say right now __ people who work for a living who have watched the cost of houses stay, you know, a little bit, you know, they make up for inflation, you make a little bit more money. this is crazy. and this is all speculation. maybe easy mortgages, too. i don't know about that. and people were just turning them over really fast. host: tim, can ask you what happened to your son's house?

caller: welcome he lucked out. he didn't listen to me, but that is why he lucked out. they lost a little tiny bit of money on it. but it was just crazy. and it was all speculation in the neighborhood. and i know that is not because of everything, like douglas was saying, there's just so many things involved in this. but to a working man who understands what it takes to get by day today, the price of these houses was insane. host: do you want to weigh in on that? guest: the prices came back to earth. and we saw that. but there are many of these neighborhoods in states where we did see a large amount of speculative behavior. so_called flipping of houses. buyers maybe put little bit of money in, and then tried to sell it truly as an investment, counting on the higher prices.

some people combined that with, well, i will live in it while i do that. when the bubbles broke in the state housing prices, this gentleman was lucky to get out without losing his money because that is right when things were really accelerating downward. host: new jersey, an independent. caller: hi, good morning. a general question. if it is so easy to but these regulations in place, why is it so hard to take them off again? guest: it is the way our government is designed. the congress makes laws, and the execution of those laws is writing and enacting regulations. congress basically said to the administration, you have to write 200 regulations. under the affordable care act, hundreds of regulation to be taking care of that congress did it right into the loss.

as a way we operate, the congress is not really involved in the regulatory operation. and the change would be to allow them to reach into the executive branch and say you cannot do that. that is a big change because that is not the way we have set up the government. host: i do want to ask you, though __ guest: the other alternative is, though, very tight. you go do it. and now, sometimes they are unhappy with what they get. host: another change that republicans want to make __ change rules on calculating. the economic impact of bills. it is called dynamics going. what does that mean? gguest: there is a lot less here than it would suggest. dynamic scoring the following. when they score, they look at how a bill will change the taxes that will come into the federal government and the

spending that will go out of the federal government. that is called the score. when they do that, they take into account everything that they can think of. whether people shift their portfolios, whether people work a little more or a little less. the one thing they don't do is ask __ does the economy grow or not? bbecause if it grows, we will get more tax revenues and we will probably spend less. that would affect the budgetary impact. so dynamics going is simply including in__ scoring is simply including in the score both of those effects. it is funny, it has become such a __ this is something that has gone on for a long, long time. if you read it, it says __ the estimates that are included in this budget assumes the president's policies that we have put in place.

president bush did it come every budget. president clinton did it, every budget. it is not new. it did it on the senate immigration bill last year. the joint committee on taxation has done this dozens of times. so this is neither new nor particularly mysterious. and in effect a handful of bills. there are not many things that covers does that can really alter the course of the economy. it is a simple thing to do in some circumstances. host: one quote from the "new york times" __ tthe basic problem remains that it is useful in the laboratory, but not in the field.

guest: so, i disagree in two ways. he was a fine cheese of staff, but the first thing is the range of outcomes concern. cbo and the joint committee have to worry about programs __ crap support programs depend on the weather. and it is impossible to predict whether there's going to be a drought or something like that. so the range of outcomes are enormous. the house just passed a bill for terrorism risk insurance. the financial concerns of an unknown terrorist attack taking place in an unknown location using an unknown weapon sometime in the future. enormous uncertainty. there is nothing unique about a dynamic scoring __ the future is uncertain, they have to evaluate legislation against their future. it is a hard problem.

politicization always gets raised. when i was appointed __ it turns out, no one ever ruins the cbo because it is the greatest institution dedicated to its job. i think it is wrong and both points. host: our viewers will hear from edward when he joins us on generator a third. we go to james in daytona beach, florida. the democratic our. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: we're fine. caller: as far as regulations, you have __ you don't have regulations unless businessmen appoint some shenanigans. there goes all the way back to the antitrust laws that were first created. but i want to bring up a half_truth that was always told. there were two senators __

graham from texas, and another republican senator __ put in legislation in the middle of the night during the last year or two of bill clinton's administration. bill clinton was going to sign a budget the next day, and phil gramm and the other republican put legislation into deregulate fannie mae and freddie mac. and it always gets put on bill clinton and his administration like he did it. republicans put that in in the middle of the night, and bill clinton, all he did was signed the budget the next day. so i want to clear that up. bill clinton did notto regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. it was two republicans who put that in in the bill. guest: i'm not familiar with the specifics. but it probably wasn't a budget, though. host: will move on to dan in new york, a republican. hi, dan, you are on the air.

caller: hello, i have a question concerning one of the first executive actions the president __ that president clinton took in 1993 concerning moving the red line rules of the investment act of 1977. __ threatening the banks with national lawsuits to relax their lending rules. what you think that had to do, with anything come with the class or creation of the housing bubble? thank you. guest: it is a good question, and a point of big disagreement. peter, for example, felt that it had a lot to do with the crisis. others disagreed. i was in the skeptical camp. there is nothing that changed

about the reinvestment act. nothing changed about it between the 1970's, the 1980's, and then in 1990's and the housing bubble. it had been around before. it was doing what it was doing. so i don't think it was at the heart of the crisis. host: time in knoxville, tennessee. an independent. caller: hello. i think your suggestion about the regulations and reviews is actually spied on. if you go back to the early 1980's, congress passed a tax act which allow them to bundle mortgages, and then trade them for equal value mortgages and take the tax fraud off. but the only place that they could do this was to go to wall street.

and there, you got a mixing between what is consumer_based banking and speculative banking. and the ease the restrictions in order for consumer_based products, which is homes, to be traded on the speculative market. i think this is the beginning of the foundation of the 2007, 2008 meltdown because now you have a large number of people trying to give anybody house. because the thought was it was going to increase in value, so what if they don't make it, we can always foreclose and then sell it again. i wanted to ask you __ what you think about bringing that regulation back to where you don't have the domestic being sold on the speculative? you look at bank of america, they own anywhere from 25% to 30% of all mortgages in the country.

guest: again, a fascinating topic. the u.s. has a long history of regional housing crisis, and banking crisis that go along with them. it was largely concentrated in the oil pacts. it had a lot to do with the climbing oil prices in the 1980's. in looking at that, the geniuses __ like economists like to think they are __ here is how we solve this. we can have all the banks in texas __ so we were just trade them around the country, so that the new york banks can hold some of them. and the texas_based can hold some of the new york mortgages, and then those banks will be safe. it really was a conservative effort to set up this ability to bundle mortgages together, spread abroad. the idea is then tthat no one is holding too much of one risky thing.

roll the clock 42 2008, and what you find out? you find out that the risky thing in the economy is home mortgages. and that a couple of very large financial institutions have a disproportionate share on the balance sheet. so instead of working out to diversify things, a concentrated all these risks on the very familiar names who, in the end, disappeared from the planet because they didn't adequately manage that risk. host: how do they not adequately manage that risk? guest: i think there was a failure to really look into some of those ssecuritize package come and look at where the actual home is in the actual value and say __ is this real? that was the real failure on wall street. the fact is, they were holding things. and they were based on mortgages, and they were not looking through the actual

mortgage because in the end, you and i have to write a check and make our mortgage payment for that thing that has no value. host: so they were not looking at specific laws to say this is a good loan. guest: to understand any court derivative, you first look at the mortgage to understand what it is based on. then you can look at the security it is bundled into. then you can look at the other securities that it was based on. the fundamental question is __ can this person pay their bill? host: was that ever asked? guest: some people asked. and some people made a lot of money because they looked through and said that it cannot work. host: bill, a democratic color. caller: i just want to make a point to that these people bought the psalms, you know, during the housing meltdown __

homes, you know, during the housing meltdown, it bloomed and they couldn't pay their mortgages. but now the point is here __ the topic is about deregulation. what were the costly to our economy if we didn't have regulation? have you calculated that? guest: wwe having calculated that. and that is a fair point. regulation derives out of a desire to pick something. and is the hhardest thing in all of the financial world. you get to value what you see, you never get the numbers for the alternative __ which is what you don't see. it is sort of trying to compare what happened with what didn't happen. the recovery act, the so_called stimulus. did it work or not? well we don't know, really. because we never saw the world without it. you never get the numbers next to each other.

host: richard in minneapolis, a republican. caller: yes, good morning. i think on the climate regulation, much of it is unnecessary. it might ruin the economy. but on this financial regulation, let's do it one fact. if we still have the glass_steagall act, they wouldn't have had this crisis. host: ookay, we'll take your point, richard, because we're running out of time. guest: you're not going to make any of these trading and speculative activities with commercial banking __ i have a checking account, you have a checking account __ bbut that glass line with away in the 1980's. the rule is essentially trying to reinstate the last line. i don't think the demise of it

was it, and i don't think putting it back with change it at all. host: ralph, in independent. caller: i think the biggest problem is nobody goes to jail. none of these bakers are going to jail. they're never going to go to jail. you can take and rob a bank with a gun, aand you are going to go to jail. you can steal thousands out of that day, you're going to go to jail. what happens is is these people steal billions, well, millions with a ballpoint pen. and nobody goes to jail. guest: i have said this a number of time, if stupidity were a crime, there would be a lot of people in jail. i think the deeper issue that is a real problem is __ if you look, for example, at the savings and loans crisis. they lost their money, and the managers lost their jobs.

then economy was insulated from the fallout __ all the things we did. in this instance, if you look around, the investors didn't lose their money. you know, we propped up the banks and the managers didn't lose their jobs. so the notion that there is some discipline for bad outcomes got lost. host: okay, less vocal here for you. a democrat to go ahead. caller: hi. earlier you are talking about regulating greenhouse gases. what about the carbon tax as advocated by citizens climate __ where the revenue would be given back to the people? the cost would be minimal because it would piggyback on infrastructure aand social security payments. and we did a __ a report

recently that said that it would not increase jobs __ that it would increase jobs. so i just wanted to get your thoughts on that. guest: i think it is widely recognized that regulating carbon, under the clean air act, is the most costly and inefficient way to do it. and we're doing it that way because, of course, carbon is a pollutant that is endangering particular speeches so the ep __ species so the epa must regulate it. a carbon tax __ the basically sets a price on something. if it costs, use less of it. and that is a very efficient way of going at that. there are lots of reasons to believe that that would be more

efficient, but it would inquire and the congress to actually implement a carbon tax. i don't think it is likely in the near term. host: quickly before let you go, tax reform could happen. what does it look like, in your opinion? guest: i think, realistically, in 2015, we're not going to see a tax reform that changes the individual tax. it is not going to happen. on the corporate side, we really cornered the market on the world's worst corporate tax code. it raises almost no revenue. that is the one i hold out the most hope for. host: douglas holtz eakin, president of the american action form. we always appreciate the conversation. guest: thank you. host: next, we open up the phones to get your thoughts on the shooting in paris.

first of all, we want to show you what john kerry had to say yesterday in response to the shootings. [video clip] >> both of us were just talking about the horrific attack in paris today. i would like to say directly to the people of paris that each and every american stands with you today not just in anger or outrage for this act of violence, but we stand with you in solidarity and commitment __ bboth to the cause of confronting extremism and in the cause that the extremists fear so much, freedom. freedom has a price.

france gave birth to democracy itself. france led so many revolutions of the human spirit, born oof freedom and free expression. that is what extremists ffear the most. they advance with weapons, but we in the united states share a commitment that is far more powerful. not just append, but a pen that represents and demonstrates freedom, not fear. free expression at a free press of core values and universal values. principles that can be attacked, but never eradicated because brave and decent people around the world will never given to the intimidation and the terror of those seeking to destroy those values. i agree with the french __ who, today, called the slain journalists martyrs for liberty.

today's murders are part of a larger confrontation. not between civilizations, no. but between civilization itself and those who are opposed to a civilized world. the murders der club claim "charlie hebdo" is dead. but make no mistake, they are wrong. today, tomorrow, in pairs, in france, and across the world, the freedom of expression that this magazine __ no matter what your feelings were about it __ the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror. on the contrary, it will never be eradicated by any act of terror. what they don't understand __ these people who do these things don't understand __ as they will only strengthen the commitment to that freedom, and

our commitment to a civilized world. host: that was secretary of state, john kerry, yesterday talking about the paris shootings and his reactions to them. now we turn to all of you. do see this as an attack on freedom of expression? their other phone lines on your screen. 202_748_8000 for democrats. 202_748_8001 for republicans. 202_748_8002 for independents. we want to hear your viewpoint on this, as well. you can dial_in now, the four lines are open. you can join the conversation on twitter, as well, if you would like. go to facebook.com/c_span. you can also send an email. journal@c_span.org.

first, joining us on the phone is jack ohman. he is the president of the association of american editorial cartoonists. let's just begin with this paper in france __ the satirical newspaper. tell us about it. guest: well, it is a 30,000 circulation, highly pointed magazine on the order of what americans would probably think of as "mad magazine" with probably a bit more point of view. and it is interesting to note that they have many staff cartoonists. in fact, they have more staff cartoonists working for it's been in the newspaper in the united states. in fact, one of my colleagues,

ted __ and so, it is, yyou know, definitely more on the fringes of publications of its kind. but it is also a highly influential magazine. host: what does history in france and france's history with satirical cartoons? guest: well, france is essentially the birthplace of cartoons as we know them. and so this particular magazine has been in publication for, i think, about 40 years. and so it, yyou know, it is very influential and it is very well known. host: what you make of what happened yesterday? guest: i was telling colleagues

yesterday that i felt that this was the kennedy assassination of cartooning, where the profound shock that this profession, not just in the united states, but all over the world hhas experienced is very much like that moment wwhere you knew where you were when you heard it, and you immediately empathized with the victims. and you will never ever forget it. host: how many people are in this profession? and is there a line that you don't cross that you won't cross? guest: in the united states, there are only about 50 full_time editorial cartoonists left in the united states. and there are probably 250

members from the association of american editorial cartoonists. worldwide, i am not sure precisely what the number is of staff cartoonist, but i think it would probably rank, you know, under 1000. so it is a very small profession. and there is a lot of cross_pollination. everybody kind of knows each other. there is a lot of foreign travel between cartoonist groups. in fact, we had a group of wonderful cuban cartoonists come to the convention in san francisco a couple months ago. and, ironically. i am hoping to lead a delegation to cuba, now that we have established relations with them. host: and my second question for you __ is there a line that you won't or should not cross? guest: well, i think it depends on where you are in the media.

and i think daily newspapers have a parameter that i think ccartoonist know where they can go, and the editors know where they can go. so __ but if you are in a magazine like "charlie hebdo" __ you know __ there are pretty much no rules. and they have led a systematic campaign against every icon for a long time. and so their style is, i think, quite different than the style of american political cartooning. host: go ahead, finish your thought, please. guest: you know, i do want to say that this is a teachable moment in america and in american journalism. it illustrates multiple things based on the reactions that i have been hearing over the last day. one is that american political cartoonists are shrinking.

and i think that this could demonstrate to publishers and owners of newspapers in this country that there is a buffer cartooning and a demand for cartooning. and really, a small handful of publishers and executives have shrunk cartooning. there used to be several hundred full_time editorial cartoons in the united states. and now we have 50. and i think it has been overwhelming with my colleagues __ express to our profession. and we were strengthened by publishers and editors. i think that we would see a real resurgence in this profession, number one. the other thing i want to say, if you don't mind __ i do not think president obama statement yesterday was as inclusive as it could've been.

he said that of course this country expresses condolences to france. and i think this is also a moment for president obama to say __ this country values satire and cartooning. and values our first amendment right to criticize him, and to criticize congress, and to go there and say __ we serve a valuable function. we illustrate the fact that there is hypocrisy in the culture. and that we should not be stifled. and we should not be murdered. and this is a hundred year role that we have had in the united states. and i sent the press secretary a tweet yesterday about this, and i asked people to treat him to get the president to go even further with this. host: let's show our viewers the cartoon that you put together in response to what happened. someone with the koran and the

caption __ show me the page where it says, kill cartoonists. guest: that is mohammed, that is not someone. host:, it is hard for me to tell. okay. guest: and i don't think mohammed would be supportive of this type of thing. everything that i have heard from my islamic friends say that this is a peaceful religion. and i don't think that this is something that is, you know, condoned by mohammed or the religion. and i think that, you know, when you have fringe group operators like al qaeda and so many of these other people __ whether they are wannabes or actual members __ during the actual things that they do, we have a profoundly troubling situation. host: all right.

jack ohman, president of the association of american editorial cartoonists. we appreciate your opinion on this and your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we want to show your viewers, before we get to your thoughts on all of this, the opposing view of "usa today." he writes __ muslims consider the prophet mohammed to be dear to them than even their parents or themselves. to defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. this is because the messenger mohammed __

your thoughts. stan in clermont, florida. we will begin with you. caller: yes, ma'am. how you doing? host: good. what are your thoughts? caller: my thoughts are __ this stuff tthat we are going through, the muslim islamic religion is not a peaceful religion. if people would read some of the quran __ which, i'm a christian. i believe in jesus.

jesus is the only god. not allah. but if you read the scripture __ if you would read that book, you would see why all this is going on. host: stan, not to go too far down that road, let's stick with what we are asking here. caller: that is what you're asking. the man just a moment ago brought up that muslims __ that islam is a peaceful religion. according to the koran, that is a lie. why do people not talk about that? host: okay, we'll leave it there and move on to randy. we're talking about this attack on the cartoonists. is it an attack on the freedom of expression? what you think, randy? caller: well, first i would like to put my condolences out, especially to that poor police

officer in that neighborhood, and the whole country of france. but i do have to say is that is the comment i was going to make. your rights are not absolute, and have restrictions. i can't see the n word and offend people. these people are a danger to the neighborhood. and journalists are not always known to being super moral. they killed princess diana and run around doing all this other sort of stuff. in fact, they just ran out with the ethics code. everybody is sitting here defining islam to all these christian people on the media, patting each other on the back and defining what it is. an offense people. you know it offense people. and you are sitting there in your office making fun of mohammed. okay? so my condolences out to them, but they are offending people. what do you expect?

they need to put some limits on the stuff and show some respect. host: mansfield, ohio. sherry. hi, there. caller: hi. this is definitely an infringement on freedom of speech and expression. it is religious_based. and even in this country, i have family members and acquaintances that feel like when i challenge their beliefs, tthey feel like they are being attacked and persecuted. and they happen to be evangelical/ conservative born_again believers. okay? i am an ex_christian, but when i was a christian, i believed in jesus christ full heartedly. i would talk to people about jesus christ and try to persuade them to join the belief.

but even at that point, my beliefs would be challenge, but i never felt persecuted or offended. i always felt that my god was big enough to take care of himself. and if you wanted tofind revenge or take revenge on the people against me, he could do it himself. i do not have to pick up a gun and shoot somebody for being offended. which, again, i never was. host: this is an arab newspaper, courtesy of the museum here in d.c. saying that the united arab emirates and the arab league condemns the attack that took place. i also want to show you a newspaper out of saudi arabia, with the headline __ the kingdom of saudi arabia flays cowardly terrorists terror strike.

the kingdom has been following the terrorist attack with deep sorrow, said one official. that from arab news out of saudi arabia. the "los angeles times" with their headline. cartoonists enrage, more so than writers, because their work is visual and transcends language barriers. "daily post" has put together some of the most shocking, they say, covers. you can take a look at that one there. we can run through a few others as we hear from nancy in north carolina, a republican. nancy, you're on the air. caller: i would like to ask a question on the narrator. she has had several people on and she asked a question of the infidel and what the koran

states, but she never asked how they read it. they love to quote from all their friends and families in whatever, but she doesn't get to the meat of it. she just dances around the fact that they have heard this that and the other. if they read the koran, they will find out that that is part of it. and i would think it's being newsworthy __ absolutely infidels, as far as the muslim religion is concerned. host: martin, an independent color __ robert, an independent caller. caller: i think it has a lot to do with the attack __ he spent years, you know, advocating afghanistan. can i take a few seconds to comment? host: you know what, robert, let's stick with the topic. caller: i will respect at.

host: randy in wisconsin, a muslim american. randy, what do you think of this? are you familiar with "charlie hebdo"? caller: yes, i'm very inclined with the cartoons. but i look at it like this __ it seems like the french government stole a play out of the american playbook. they're trying to get their secret agenda across, too. this is like a baby 9/11. a baby 9/11. now they're going to pass all these new policies and anti_policies against muslims, like they always do. which i don't think __ it doesn't add up. it doesn't add up. they are leaving ids in the car. this post be professional? personally, i think it is the

whole french government behind the whole thing, just like 9/11. host: moving onto willie in ohio. the democratic caller. caller: hi. i don't think that the world should judge the whole organization or religion by what jihadi's do or did. i just want to say something about the cartoonist. when he said that obama didn't speak up and he should have said this and that, when sony got sabotaged, he spoke up. he said this is a country of freedom of speech. and the cartoonist, i think, was wrong when he said that. thank you very much. host: thank you, willie. the final word __ "charlie hebdo" didn't censor, and neither should the rest of the world.

sandra in vegas, in independent. your next, sandra. go ahead. sandra, good morning to you. one last call for sandra. ron and pontiac, illinois. a republican. caller: hi. i agree that it is an attack on freedom of expression, both press and speech. but pardon my sarcasm __ but essentially, why do you care? i mean, we have seen the irs go after the tea party. we have seen the administration go against charlie rose, and cbs is censoring its reporter who was on not too long ago.

i __ i have been called into the office at work bbecause when i say goodbye, i say god bless. and that is considered offensive. right? there is also tough __ you know __ i am glad to see you guys come to the party, but this is more than just one attack. this is an ongoing thing on various layers in society. host: okay. we're taking your thoughts on the paris shootings, and whether or not you think this is an attack on freedom of expression. the editorial pages full of opinions today saying that it is. we read you the "washington post". the "new york times" says that it attempted it's one too many times.

several cartoonists have responded. here is one showing the pencils and the airplane, depicting the twin towers in new york and what happened on 9/11. then there is also this cartoon that was put together. and also another cartoon for you in response to what happened by a fellow cartoonist. this was featured on bbc news website. also, "cartoonists unite" putting together this cartoon. and a few others as will continue to show you. we have about 10 minutes left, getting your thoughts on whether or not this is an attack.

let us go to wreck, an independent caller __ rick, an independent caller. caller: good morning to you. first of all, this is definitely an attack on the freedom of expression. i thought it was interesting you read the papers from saudi arabia. can anyone even imagine that a cartoonist could have freedom of expression in saudi arabia, or any other islamic country, for that matter. but it is being attacked around the globe. consider cuba or russia or other countries where you have aa toll a tarrying government, with the government tries to control the people start by restricting the freedom of expression. i don't really think that they were sincere in their condemnation of the fact that expression was being put down. they were concerned about the fact that this was conducted by

members of their own religion. thank you for listening. host: roberto, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on this? caller: i have a couple of thoughts. i really appreciate your discussion on this. here is my thought. we took prayer out of schools, and we took, you know, the thought of the american nation being a country that is based on christian values. and we have taken that down. and we have let other people bring in their religions and say, look at our religion. we have almost kind of taken it upon oor above all the other religions because every time we do something that offends the

muslims __ let's keep this picture in our minds very freshly, my friends __ do see that picture of that being done on the floor with his hands up, i surrender, and a muslim man coming and shooting him, executing him, because he represents the thought of american people freedom of speech? only getting to the point, and this is my question, are we getting to the point in america __ now, imagine this picture __ america with a bunch of sandbags around us, and there is an area of sandbags that are being taken down, infiltrated by the muslims saying, this is what we think that america should stand for. and letting down our guard and putting signs up __ the signs say that we are no longer a free country. if we offend people and they don't like it, people are going

to vie for that. we are going to have to get to the point to say, you are no longer allowed to act like this in america because we are a free country and we have freedom of speech and that is what we're built on; ttherefore, you are no longer allowed to do these things in her people in america for what they believe in. host: i'm going to leave it there. it may be necessary, they __ that is the "wall street journal" editorial board weighing in on this this morning. ken has a piece in the commentary section of the "washington times" __

alex, woodland, california. alex, good morning to you. caller: good morning. my comment is very short and that is that to limit the question to just freedom of expression is kind of a part of the overall soft approach to this kind of violence. they were attacked in tears because they are non_islamic. and that is the whole line that was crossed. host: and where did you read that? wwhere does that come from? caller: oh, just from __ i read a lot about jihad_ism and the koran. and i read the koran 40 years ago, but frankly, didn't understand it. i haven't read the whole thing over again because it is not with my time, but the details are replete with it is okay to kill anything or person that is not islamic.

but in islamic thing is protected under all costs. host: okay. about this magazine, "charlie hebdo" __ the "washington post" wwrites that "charlie hebdo" was one of several european publications to reprint cartoons about the prophet mohammed __ including one showing the prophet with a bomb fuse under his turban. a little bit about this magazine and what they put out in the past. gary from oklahoma, a republican. hi, there.

go ahead, gary. you are on their. caller: thank you for letting me get on here. i feel like we need to look back on history when japan attacked america, as they did in 9/11 in our lifetime here __ in this generation. what did they do? they admittedly __ not admitted, but pretty much eventually found the enemies that were here __ which we did have a lot of japanese here that were workers. way back in time when we started developing the country, we brought japanese in here for labor. and eventually, they made contact with their people and, finally, when the war came and they decided to attack america, what do we do? we rounded them up and sorted them out and stopped the communication with the resources. now we have been overrun, we have been taken over by the

muslim people. our government, we have people in the government that have been elected from the present down. even our teachers are teaching in our classroom __ the koran, there talking down christianity. i feel it is very much the time that if we look back at history _ we will live through this. host: we go to randall, a democratic caller. is this an attack on the freedom of expression? caller: as you look throughout history, you know, you probably __ when they would kill people. but here, right now, that is islam as a religion. i think it stands for people who are basically barbarians.

and that is why it works for them because it is a highly destructive religion. and they're trying to come to the west and enjoy the differences that the west offers. at the same time, they want to bring their religion and enforce it all on the west, who would __ you know, you have to give up something for something else. host: okay, randall. we'll have to leave it there. the house of representatives is about to gavel in. live coverage here on c_span. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 8, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable david w. jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant