ontinues with michael farrell. those conversations plus your comments, tweets, and e-mails. ♪ ♪ host: good morning, everyone. senate leaders have reached a by artists in deal on anti-human trafficking will highlight clearing the path for the reddit lent to get a vote in the coming days for attorney general fe. it was to delay at any attorney general nominee and decade spirit a new poll out yesterday find americans ours it on their support for the affordable care act. whether they should appeal the

law, we will take your temperature. what is your view? republicans (202) 748-8001 democrats (202) 748-8000 and independents i (202) 748-8002. phone lines are oh then. -- open. caitlin is a reporter for the national journal. let's begin with the kaiser family foundation poll released yesterday. what question do they ask people in this survey? guest: i think the prominent one was whether or not they have a a verbal or unfavorable view of the affordable care act.

it was actually split. host: why is that? guest: that is a good question. the gap has been narrowing for a few months now. even with 1% of the population, is than the margin of error. a point to the change of a narrowing down. host: how does this compare with devious polls on the affordable care act? guest: it depends how far back you are looking. last month there's not much of a difference. this time last year, there is a slightly bigger difference. it has switched since this time last year. host: march marked the five-year anniversary of the orderable care act. in the president said it is

working and succeeding. when this poll was given along political lines, what did it show? democrats versus republicans? guest: democrats. that has not changed much. it is still partisan. host: how do republicans feel about it? guest: 75% is unfavorable. host: what did the kaiser family foundation ask about what to do about the affordable care act? guest: they looked at americans and whether or not they think it should be appealed or change. it was pretty's lit. under half want congress to expand the law or keep it as is. 4 in 10 what then to repeal it. this has remained pretty constant. host: republicans have put into

their budget blueprints in the house incident language under reconciliation that would repeal the affordable care act. words that they stand right now? -- where does that stand right now? guest: experts are saying repealing is out of the question but that remains to be seen. host: thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we turn to you to get your thoughts on the affordable care act. what is your view on this legislation? do you like it? do you have fixed billions with it? -- do you have experience with it? you can start dialing in now. sally pipes writes " shreds

of doubt about obamacare." promises remain unrealized.

host: dana and indiana, at republican. what do you think of the affordable care act? guest: i think it had to intentions. i do not think anyone would argue that it did not. it has done a lot more harm than good. it is making the backbone of the country look for something better in regard to health care. i'm one of the 16%ers who does not have insurance until a couple of weeks ago through my employer. the mandates, i was not, i did

not have to get insurance. there are a lot of options available will to it. it is costing more than it is worth. host: you did not have health insurance and 2014? caller: you got it. host: do you have to pay tax penalty? caller: no. rari already got have my refund. host: white you say it is not working? caller: i heard from a congress and that doctors are only getting a portion of their reimbursement. i am pretty sure i heard also that they are getting less of a reimbursement than what they were before. they are cutting patients at a higher rate than what we have seen in a long time or ever.

it is just not working. host: what do you want your party to do about it? caller: i do not want to see them repeal and replace obamacare. that is a terrible statement. i want him to amend at -- i wanted them to amend it. i think they are on the right task. repealing and replacing is the wrong thing to do. the number of americans who have been insured is consistent in about 14 state. we cannot disenfranchise the health and welfare of the nation because of politics. i think that it is why it is not gone yet. host: steve democrat, go ahead. caller: we are the only industrialized country that you

can lose your home. i have a brother that suffered from cancer and a friend that suffered cancer recently. they are both in catastrophic financial conditions. we're the only country that this can happen to you industrialized country. we all get sick, whether republicans or democrats. insurance companies, medical, pharmaceutical, they profit from us getting sick. it is something i do nothing goes far enough. we should have a single-payer system to where we can all afford health care. host: ok. do you think the affordable care act is one step closer? caller: hopefully so. host: ok.

steve in indianapolis through the let's go to darlene and las vegas, independent color. early morning to you. go ahead. caller: i was very fortunate to get one of my employers insured under the affordable care act or so i thought. as i attempted to get medical care around the las vegas valley everywhere i went he was turned down and i was told over and over because there are so many health-care corporations now that obamacare does not pay enough in reimbursements so they were refusing him treatment. iit made it a challenge. host: what kind of insurance did he get? caller: he got helpt health plan of nevada through medicaid in the state of nevada. it is unfortunate. so many people thought they

would be receiving the care. what happened in the las vegas valley is multiple. first nations that had ssd ssi, who were medicaid recipients initially and wiped them off the books in favor of cash only or better insurance other than a federal government for statement insurance. it is an absolute shame. it lets a huge role in the health care system that people are trying desperately to find providers. host: what do you think congress could do? caller: truly mayhem, i do not knoww. if i knew i would be in office. i'm trying to shore up the expanded medicaid system known what anyway. i feel so bad. there are some people truly struggling and fighting or just trying to get basic health care. host: marie, virginia

republican. caller: how are you doing? host: i am doing well. caller: i want to make to comment spirit i didn't know people remember that president reagan's that the way to socialism is the rachel through our health care. the reason people got on obamacare was because they were forced to. those are my comments. thank you very much. host: before you go. what do you want your republican party to do about it? caller: i wasn't to go back to the way things were. host: a full repeal. caller: yes. host: how big of an issue is this for you looking at to thousands of elections? -- looking at 2016 elections? caller: i went in to fix it. everyone was taking care of the

weight rings were. -- the way things were. i'm very unhappy about it. it has messed me up personally. i do not like it. host: where does that ring in other top issues -- ran and other top issues? kcaller: number one. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am a property manager. host: how old are you? caller: i am not in my 40's anymore. let me put it that way. host: we will go to rich in pittsburgh. hi. caller: i have unique perspective. i am a veteran. i am out of this. i believe the polling is misrepresented. i ain't these polls should state that do you approve or disapprove of it or you disapprove of it? it does not go far enough.

i have two friends. one makes less than 20,000 years. another makes over 50,000 a year. they have identical insurance. my friend that his from the marketplace at $19,000 a year. $12 a month. my other friend has the exact same plan but he has to pay 473 dollars a month. he hates obamacare. my other friend loved it. here is the thing. when they go to the doctor if they have identical cards. they have identical silver plans. the doctors do not know which one came from the marketplace and onone did not.

host: do you think obamacare just not go are enough? caller: i am for total single-payer. i have no dog in the fight. i think we are ridiculous to have a system like england. they love it. my friends love their system over there. host: here is a vox.com piece from march last month.

we are getting your views on the article care act. what do you about it five years into it? getting your view on whether or not you like it or dislike it. a new poll yesterday shows americans ours still split on this health care law. we will get some more of your calls here. let me show you the front page of the washington times. susan leaders have come to a bipartisan deal on an anti-human trafficking will. the nominee for attorney general will get a vote on yours. president obama picked her and

has been pending since late last year. here is a little bit from the senate or yesterday when mitch mcconnell and harry reid announced the deal. [video clip] >> we have been able to resolve the impasse that has prevented the senate from moving forward on this deal. i am glad we can say there is a bipartisan proposal that will will allow us to complete action so we can provide help to the victims who desperately need it. as soon as we finish the traffic bill we will move to the president's nominee for attorney general. hopefully, in the next day or so.

i want to thank the senior senator from texas for leading these the negotiation and his diligence on these issues. there is no schommer advocate for victims of human trafficking in senator cornyn. >> if we can sit down and work toward a solution could and can happen. the senate need more of this spirit let's hope the post agreement amendment to not ruin the agreement that we have reached. each site will have to be conscious. any one of the amendments can cause a filibuster. we do not need to get involved in it. we need to move forward on this legislation. host: the minority leader harry reid on the floor yesterday after a deal with announced a him and mitch mcconnell that they would move forward on

loretta lynch's nomination. she should a vote on thursday. she appears to have enough votes confirmation, though just rarely. here are a couple of tweets from democrats. loretta lynch is more than five to be our next attorney general. the time for a confirmation vote is now. itblack today republicans decided to stop playing games and i am the end of the gridlock to confirm lynch as attorney general. more on that c-span2 when he says gets underway today. we are getting your take on the affordable care act. americans are still lit. what is your view? richard, you are up. independent. caller: i will say this.

i do not really understand it. why don't the government's it down with these big insurance companies and have a big meeting and find out why the care is so expensive, why medical bills are so it's expensive? i do not even know what is going on. medicaid is just more of a welfare insurance for the children. there is just a small percentage of elderly people that use it. let's sit down and find out what is the problem. why is medical insurance so expensive? host: douglas in maryland, republican. hi, douglas. caller: last year my company

canceled all retirement benefits. i had to go on the health care exchange and become a member of obamacare. i can tell you that like previous caller that talked about his two friends with the same plan, i chose a broad land which turned out to about the same monthly payment. it has a $6,000 deductabile. if i had gone for a plan that was similar to what my company benefits were it would have cost me about 2.5 times what i was paying. i am for repeal and reform. more reform. the deal that the democrats made with the insurance companies and the drug companies is to let them keep their profits and set their rates.

if you do not to get a subsidy obamacare is not an economic way of paying for health care. host: arizona, democrat. good morning. caller: two of my adult children have a to get insurance because of pre-listing conditions. my son was working in a job that had insurance and he left to go to a job, a better job but one that did not supply and insurance. he would not have been able to get insurance if it had not been for the affordable care act. host: how much money was accosting before they were able to get insurance for this pre-existing condition? caller: they were not able to get it. host: so what were the medical bills like? caller: they were not terribly

high. it is a chronic condition. it was mainly in the cost of the prescriptions which was about $250 a month. host: if you now saving that $250 a month? caller: yes. he is saving more money because of having his prescription covered then it was costing for the prescription. he has a silver plan. host: bill in new york. independent caller. you are on the air. what is your view of the affordable care act? caller: it has only been out a couple of years. you cannot really judge or make any decision about how well it is working in such a time

period. this was demonized out of the eight by the republicans because it is the showpiece of the obama administration. if never wanted it to you. a lot people have misconceptions. you cannot judge such a plan in two years. you have to give it 5-10 years. the market forces a think we'll bring it down, it takes time for that to happen. host: you are an independent. what do you want to see congress do or hear from the politicians? caller: i would like to hear the republicans are shut up or talk truthfully about it. i would give it more time. my idea for health care is a single-payer. i think you should give everybody medicare, pay based on income. the woman several callers ago the first manifestation of

socialism is medicare. medicare is socialized medicine. it works just fine. the problem with health or if the prices go up because of the drug companies charging outlandish prices. as it is evident as i am a physician. host: what do you practice? caller: i am an in turn us, primary care. host: here is the new york times. i

white house hopefuls are preparing for the first primary vote. that deal is likely to be offered when the finance committee meet today at 10:45 a.m. we will have coverage of that on c-span3. if you are following this debate closely, they will be marking of

trade deal. you will hear more debate on it when democrats and republicans need on the senate finance committee. democrats want to amend the trad e bill. a block of difficult is blocking currency manipulation from the bill to ask that i specific trade deals. they want to include a measure to crack down on the manipulation crack distance. they are turning this on their head.

it would include nations such as australia, in vietnam as a counterweight to china which is not part of the trade deal. that is what democrats are hoping for. ted cruz, paul ryan joining together to write in the wash -- wall street journal. here is a piece written by these two lawmakers.

the wall street journal saying that rob portman may be supporting this effort by democrats. a lot of the papers on where the did eight is headed. let me show you what it doesn't have to say about it yesterday. he was part of a round table on open heart all."

ardball." [video clip] president obama: i love elizabeth warned that she is wrong on this and let me be very clear on this and on my views on trade. i am not somebody who believes in trade for trade sake. i come from a state in illinois that was devastated by the loss of manufacturing in many small towns. i we had a stretch of a couple of decades where in part because of globalization manufacturing moving wages. trade deals have not always work for us. what i have also always lead to that it is us --important for us to make sure our jobs are

competitive. when i came into office i said what kind of trade deal would i like to see? how would we readvamp traded to make it work for america? we would have stronger labor standards. we would have stronger environmental standards with the countries we treated with. we would make sure we have access to their markets. we decided to start trying to crack a new kind of -- craft a new kind of trade deal. 90% of customers will be outside of the united states. if we want to compete we have to be there. host: president obama on "hardball" yesterday.

then the headlines this morning has a front-page story. it says fenton in the middle as trade deal pushed by obama to five party. clinton is viewed as a key barometer of the strategy to shift u.s. foreign-policy to asia to confront china's rowing influence. listen to what you have to say yesterday in new hampshire as she was campaigning there. [video clip] hillary clinton: any trade deal has to increase prosperity and protect our security. we have to do our part and make sure we had the tape abilities and skills to be competitive. it has to be a partnership

between our business government, work force intellectual property that comes out of our university. we have to get back to a much more focused effort to try to produce those capacities here at home so we can be competitive. host: bloomberg with a video hillary clinton yesterday in new hampshire. how her view on the trade deal that she wants to wait and see what the details are. congress will hear from the japan prime minister next week during his week long visit to the united states. he will be giving a speech before the house and the senate. this trade deal is likely to come up before the lawmakers. steve king keeping fast track on the straight and narrow. he says republicans should use trade promotion authority to

crack down on the executive action on immigration. this is steve king writing and the washington times. that to our calls and getting your view on the order care act. thank you for hanging on the line. though ahead. -- go ahead. caller: i have been in the medical field and the insurance field. insurance companies are based on pre-determining risk factors when they determine rate for insurance. when you dump millions of people in that do not have any history or anything shown or what risk they are, if there is the ratio out the window. what is happening right now people that are on obamacare

the out-of-pocket and detectable's out of reach for them. i believe the way it should be handled is out-of-pocket and deductibles should be by percentage based on income. for a person of his hundred thousand dollars, for them to pay $10,000 for deductibles nothing. the medical. that was passed last week has burned bits in it dictating -- verba and itge has language requiring several layers care and treatment in a group called try it organization indicates it is an excellent model. there should be a lot of concerned with the obamacare and the medicare bill. host: what do you want republicans to do about it? caller: they should repeal obama here. the out-of-pocket deductibles

should always be based on a person's income. that is what is causing people to go bankrupt from medical bills. they are getting pushed out of any kind of the ligety to save money -- any kind of ability to save money. it should be completely annihilated. it is like depopulation. we are going to penalize.e doctors. that is all elderly and people. to say that is an and slip model were future health care is frightening. that needs to be just immediately. i am surprised a republican would pass such a bill. host: michigan, democrat. hi.

caller: i was just listening to that lady. she is correct. i am middle class. i do not make that much. i'm the sole breadwinner for my family. i have health insurance through where i work. the last couple of years they have increased the out-of-pocket expense into bankruptcy territory. i cannot afford obama here. -- obamacar i read ine. article they're getting penalized or what the government determines a cadillac plan. we have good health insurance. that was one less thing i had to worry about for my family. now i'm having a health crisis and i have such out-of-pocket expenses that it is bankruptcy territory. my brother is having a health rices to you lose everything he owns. this is the middle class.

we make up for the tax freeze for the rich. we cover all the expenses for other people. we get screwed. host: blake in tennessee. independent color. your thoughts? caller: the affordable care act has some holes but it is in the right direction. the marketplace does not make up for the fact that people were being discriminated against for three distinct conditions. the republicans need to offer a series plan -- serious plan. they were for some type of mandate in massachusetts. now that obama is for if they are against it. i would like to see the republican party come up with a serious alternative.

in terms of the callers who said they are going bankrupt, this is one of the issues government can play a role in coming in and having some sort of price controls with the insurance companies in terms of what they charge for catastrophic coverage. just a the marketplace to fill in the gap where obamacare has not done the job adequately. host: some of the quick headlines for you this morning. " chamber in google are among top lobbying spenders in the first quarter of 2015." if you want to follow the money you can find it on maplight.org. today marks the first day of the

des moines register. it has this headline. "environment a bigger stage but a backseat, the economy and health care national securities will rules among an amazing amount of financial noise." renewable fuels are expected to get a bigger stage. experts expect concerns about saving the planet will play fourth federal to issue such as national security. president obama will be marking earth day today. he will be delivering remarks at the everglades national park in florida. also in the paper this morning, there's this headline. dea chief will step down and pensions grow over policies.

they had the dea has decided re-sign agreements on drug in criminal justice policy. listen to what she had to say then. [video clip] >> looking in hindsight, you feel he received appropriate discipline? caller:>> he took action. it was not the right action. that has not happened with him in the past. he has done a number of things in colombia since that incident to ensure that this does not happen again. >> do you think there is a

comfort problem here? >> i believe there may have been a cultural problem. >> may have been? >> going to stop? >> years back. >> when did it stop? >>i assume you have a date you think it stopped. i would love to know what it is. why do you say that? >> when you see these parties and what was happening in 2000-2004 were by one group of agents within colombia. i would say that is a cultural problem. host: michelle leanohartonhart last week. she announced she would be stepping down. in 2016, from page of usa today. the coke brothers plan to play

kingmakers. ted cruz is a contender for the gop nomination. ted cruz says that soldier should be able to carry side arms to help with security on bases so that military officials deal more safe. newt gingrich writing in today's "wall street -- new york times" he believes the republicans should be for doubling the metal research budget -- medical

research budget. he says that as a conservative i am often skeptical of government investments but when it comes to government it alone can bring to necessary resources to bear. it is irresponsible and shortsighted not to let financing for basic research and window. a couple more phone calls on your view of the orderable care act. brian in iowa, democrat. go ahead. caller: mother jones magazine has an article this month about the plaintiffs who are suing the affordable care act. it had me questioning these people's standings. one guy with covered by the

veterans administration. one by medicaid. i this case will be very. host: the decision by the? caller: yes. host: if the rule against the administration be done? caller: because these people do not really have standings were the case, i am going to be surprise if the supreme court rules against it. host: bill kentucky, republican. good morning to you. caller: all of you people bragging on this obamacare or the unaffordable care act [indiscernible] the kids on 26 has caused my sons insurance to triple to keep my grandson on at 26.

now when my grandson get 26 he will have to pay triple, about $400 a month, to be able to get health care. you could buy it right now for $90 a month. these pre-existing conditions and birth control for the women he has got to have on it. birth control and all this stuff. my insurance has been trip. led. i was paying $69 a month. now i am paying $189 a month. they put us on the obamacare deal. they had this paper all this extra stuff. i do not even meet it. all of these people will think it is cheaper. when you add a pre-existing

condition and kids to 26 and paying for for control for the women. you cannot go down and buy a new car. host: all right. coming up next year when to switch careers and talk a republican congressman of was on sin. we'll get his take on iran. later medical cap of massachusetts will be here. we will be right back. ♪ >> she was considered modern or her time. she was outspoken on her views

on slavery in women's right. she provides a window into colonial america and her personal life. apical add-ins sunday night at 8:00 p.m. -- abigail adams sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, examining the public in private life of the women who filled the position of first lady from martha washington to michelle obama. as a compliment to the series c-span's new book is available will "first ladies." providing lively stories of these fascinating women, creating an inspiring read. it is available as a hardcover or in e-book store your favorite bookstore or online seller. here are a few of the book

festivals he will be covering. this weekend we will be in maryland where the annapolis festival hearing from alberto gonzalez and james ricin. we will revisit maryland life coverage of gaithersburg festival with martin ross and tom davis as well as david axelrod. will close out made in new york city where it they showcase their upcoming books. in june we are like were the rangers room let best in chicago the three-hour program lawrence wright and your phone calls on c-span2's booktv. >>host: we want to welcome back a republican of wisconsin. he sits on the foreign affairs committee. i want to begin with what dominated the front pages this

morning. saudi's announced thing the bombing of the human rebels. the obama administration has put pressure on the saudi's to stop the bombings. they are saying what they did was effective. guest: we're also getting reports that they reengaged as well. they pulled back and then reengage. he will see the region continually and turmoil. yemen does not have a stabilized government. the region is nervous about it. they are going to be playing a role there to make sure that the iranians and do not get a little bit, do not play in their backyard too much. host: campaign against human rebels entered the new phase. that could include ground operations. what do you make of that? guest: i do not think it will

u.s. route operations but it could include saudi ground operations for sure. this tug-of-war in the middle east will continue to expand. you see the activity going on with isis. there is a lot attention that is taking place in the entire region. it should not surprise any of us that regional players are one to try to stabilize and so they do not have it infiltrating into their own countries. i do not think we should be surprised. they are right there. host: do you agree with the actions they had been take or the administration move to move warships into the area? guest: i do agree and this will open in the fcc do not have any way of cutting off commerce. that would dramatically affect the economies of saudi

arabia israel, jordan, you cannot move goods and services into the red sea. i think that move was the correctly to make by the government. it would be hypocritical for us to criticize what the saudi's are doing and they are right to their in the region. they probably have better intel than we do. guest: the foreign minister of iran wrote a piece for he outlined the situation between the saudi's in r and what is happening in humanian. it one were to begin there is discussions of the calamities em and be a good place to start. iran has offered a practical approach to address this unnecessary crisis. guest: it sounds pretty good when you put it that way.

it is not consistent with the iranian action in the region. iranians have been one of the players and disrupting the government in yemen. they have been a key player in facilitating the violence that is taking place in human. i have agency to disregard a political statement that was intended more for the iranian even necessarily for any type of resolution. host: what do you think this all means for the deal of a nuclear arms agreement with iran? guest: be more of life continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism regionally, the less likelihood that a deal can be reached. in part because you will have members of congress revolting on the whole idea and rejecting it appeared stop and think of what a new era armed iran might look like or what they would do. this does not help them at all.

it is not help negotiations at all. having iranians are shipping arms and weapons and whatnot into yemen not necessarily constructive. host: do you agree with what you have seen so far in these negotiations? guest: i wrote an op-ed piece a few weeks ago. i do not think we can have any acceptance of a potential for a nuclear armed iran. not today. not 10 or 15 years from now. it will serve to destabilize a very difficult region. there are tough neighbors in the neighborhood during this is not helpful. host: what should be happening? guest: i think the strategy was these very tough sanctions. you have the entire world with their foot on the neck of the iranians. they were aiming it. those extreme sanctions were what caused them to come to the table to begin with. it was at that real pressure point that i felt the region and

the civilized world actually had its position of strength to get the ratings to stand out on nuclear power in its totality. they do not need it. why would a country so oil and carbon rich need to go to the extreme expense of building nuclear power when they can build natural gas power plants to turn the lights on in their country and have consistent, reliable, low-cost energy that was not about nuclear weapons? it is not about electrical power. host: what do you think about the role russia's playing in all of this? news reports are that they plan to sell weapons to iran? guest: this is the result of the american government showing weakness in the debate. as long as we continue to await as long as we continue to keep sanctions the table or unwilling

to them back, you should it that's that=============== expected another power should emerge. host: the president has said with the sanctions but will be eased slowly and that iran has to take the steps outlined. guest: the sanctions in their entirety cannot be removed without the approval of congress. the sanctions have been relaxed already. russia is not able to sell weapons into a wrong. it shows you the sanctions have already been relaxed. it was the wrong move at the wrong time at the precise moment where we had our biggest amount of leverage. our strongest position we took our foot off the gas. host: does this passed the house and senate? guest: it will be dependent on what it looks like.

i will not take a prejudgment. we are talking about the pre-negotiations and that are supposed to happen by june 30. whether it can pass the house or senate i we can see what the documents are. host: you can join the conversation republicans (202) 748-8001, democrat (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002. let me go back to the situation in yemen. our powerful and peace seeking military should serve as a model to those bombing the oppressed women and children in yemen. this is something the administration sent to the saudi leaders here at your efforts underway are sending the wrong message and could have the impact that you are not looking. guest: it is possible. you have to remember why the saudi's have made the decision to do what they are doing.

women a children were being killed prior. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula had a very strong foothold in yemen. the restraint on al qaeda that it can work in that region. however, the idea that the iranians are not linked to have some type of response, this threat in yemen has been greatly caused in many respects i the actions of the ingredients. it seems -- by the actions of the iranians. it seems a little bit to the critical. that was a statement, not a policy one. host: we trying to work with iran. we are with them when it comes to fighting isis. guest: they're in life the complexity of the entire region and this ongoing sunni/shia tug-of-war that is taking place inside the middle east.

some countries have been able to find a useful coalition between sunni and shia. when they do it, it is. host: give us examples. guest: you can look at kutcherquatar for one. . a centralized government is able to provide a level of freedom for these various secretary and views to actually emerge and function within society. host: a tricky diplomatic two-step is what he writes. president obama has been trying to convince saudi arabia in the other allies that the 90 states is truly committed to their security.

guest: and we are seeing that military commitment taking place. just a few weeks ago, the obama administration authorized, and i think correctly, the sale of certain arms to the nation of egypt. you have a lot of threats in north africa, so to the degree that we can facilitate these nations to stand on their own two feet and provide for their own security, i think that is a wise move to make. it is better than having u.s. soldiers on the ground during the fighting for them. but also to that level strength it does have the ability to camp down some of the threats that occur around you because the cost -- host: let's get to calls. a democrat. you are up first for the

congressman. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. and thank you for taking my call. my question is -- with the other countries keeping the sanctions on, you know, i want to know if the congressman feels that russia especially, along with the other countries, will keep the sanctions? and how long does you think that will last? because without doing anything but continuing sanctions, i don't think we are moving in the right direction. thank you. guest: it is a fair question. i mean, the idea whether or not sanctions work and who actually pays the price on sanctions, i think that has been an ongoing debate literally throughout all of history as nations have used the method of sanctions to try and change behavior in a particular area of the world. in this case, there is real documentation that sanctions were actually working. so the idea that we would begin

to ease up or remove, eliminate, soften sanctions at the very moment they were being effective seems to me to be the wrong move because in this case, they were actual working. host: in minneapolis, and independent color. -- caller. caller: hi, good morning. after all these years, i keep thinking about -- what -- why is it that we haven't managed to bring about a regime change in a country where the regime is not wanted by the people? and we are not doing anything and yet we are just beating around the bush. guest: are you speaking of iran? caller: correct. guest: ok. let's talk a little bit about that. if you look at the last 10 or 15

years, there were moments where it seems like the iranian people were going to be standing up and trying to actually change the government there. at that point, the u.s. decided to be silent. back in 2009 at 2010. as a result, they decided to take the strategy that they are on right now. i do believe that had we sent a signal of support at that time, you might have actually seen the iranian people grab hold of the government and begin to change it for the better. the iranian people are bright they are intelligent, well educated. they have the ability to manage an economy. and had their been a little bit of the -- of assistance from the west at that time any sign of support, maybe a regime change what happened at that moment. but now history has passed by. host: gary, indiana, victor.independent caller. hi, victor. you are on the air with the

congressman. go ahead. caller: you know, we have destabilization in the middle east and the united states government has paid -- played at such hypocrisy. the betrayal of him with his own people -- these people think -- see the hypocrisy of this country. when george bush senior went into iraq after the united states government supported iraq to fight against iran, and we provided weapons of mass destruction -- now, people are not as ignorant as the american government would try to suggest that they are. osama bin laden was financed and supported to fight against

russia. now we are in afghanistan. we have seen the inconsistencies of integrity. when saddam hussein took kuwait, the people were not aware that quite used to be part of iraq. then we went over there and a stabilized all that is going on in the middle east. we pitted nation against nation, then we flip-flopped and we attacked the nation. we supported the -- saddam hussein, osama bin laden, then they became immortal enemies. host: ok, victor, let's talk to the congressman and gets his -- get his thoughts. guest: i think you point to one of the things in the nation, and that is who are your friends and who are your foes over there. and who will stabilize and who will destabilize the region. it is an extraordinarily complex situation. you have rightly stated in two

situations with iraq and afghanistan those complexities. how over history, western foreign-policy is trying to do things to maneuver, to create an environment that is stable. ultimately, ultimately, the people of the region will have to determine what stability looks like for them. what you are starting to see finally in the region's coalitions of -- starting to say enough is enough. i think this is a good sign when a step up on their own. if you take a look at what jordan has been doing in the last several months since isis captured one of their pilots is the exact appropriate response by a neighbor in the region to say, no, we are not going to let this continue. and it is a complex region. it is easy to look back and say this is george w. bush's fall -- fault, but you can go back decades and you will find this constant movement of shifting

stands over there, literally and sunni and shia populations move about the region. host: what do you think the impact of this will have on the whole situation over there, if at all? this is the headline in the wall street journal -- an injection criminal court sentenced the former president to 20 years in prison on charges of -- guest: this is one of the situations where you had the arab spring moving in the region. in an effort to try and squelch it or push down the will of the people, he ended up going to far and some of his allies in the fight to their for the government ended up killing protesters. the list of the results as the new government has taken over. i don't think the u.s. should be

interfering in the civil matter in egypt. at some point, the egyptians have to stabilize the government. host: and morsi part of the muslim brotherhood. do you think that is part of the tension between the muslim brotherhood and the egyptian leadership now? guest: well, it allows the potential for a rise to happen. there is also the potential for it to settle down a bit where they say, ok, here is what happens if you become one of the bad actors in the area. what happens on the internal politics in egypt, we will all be watching -- i mean, this was a pretty bold move. now we will have to see how the egyptian people respond. host: vergil in alabama, a democrat. hi, vergil. caller: hello. thank you, c-span, for your interview with the congressman. congressman, i have a question for you. years ago, when we had -- that

was against legalizing liquor. a few weeks back, i had about iran talking about -- heard about iran talking about why they didn't want this deal because they could put all that stuff on the black market. and they were making plenty of money and the sanctions didn't matter to them. what do you think about the black market deal there was talking about a few weeks back? host: vergil, repeat the question. what do other -- you want the congressman's thoughts on what? caller: yes, a few weeks back, there was news on the black markets and the sanctions didn't really bother them. they were selling oil on the black market trade host: -- on the black market. host: ok, that the hardliners

were selling oil on the black market. guest: now, anytime you see a black market movement, particularly on a commodity like oil, that is with the civilized world has to step in because crude has no value short of it being available to a refiner to refine it into something that is usable. so, at some point -- and this is happening pretty consistently now -- i am going to call them the civilized world, both in the middle east and the west, have begun to put a stranglehold on the refiners from taking that black market oil. as a result, we have been able to cut off a lot of the resources that are there. if oil cannot be refined, it cannot be purchased. host: windsor, connecticut, pete. an independent caller. caller: yeah, i just have a comment that i don't see america wanting anything in the middle. ok?

our congressman offered much owned by a pet -- host: pete, you are making some accusations. caller: these are not accusations. do some research. you always interrupt with some but he says something like that. host: because that is a general statement -- caller: you let other people keep going because of israel or whatever. host: pete, let me jump in. if someone calls in and says that a muslim lobbyist group runs our government, whoever is sitting in this chair would jump in and say, what evidence you have of that? congressman, you have probably heard this accusation before. guest: yes, and a number of cases. it is not just the israelis or apac having a lobbyist group in d.c., it is every major company. we have often heard about the modern money that is in this town, trying to drive the agenda.

and i think it would be disingenuous to say that that money doesn't have some type of an effect, or that the people who are spending it wouldn't spend it. but to say that it is such a large effect that it is actually manipulating what is going on in the middle east, i don't see the evidence of it. it is not like a pack -- apec has given me a call saying do this, do that. i realize that there is this impression out there that this is going on, but i can tell you it is not going on in the halls of congress. host: michigan, richard. independent caller. caller: good morning, how are you? guest: good morning, good. caller: i have two things to say. one is about -- as far as what the president is doing with iran. i agree 100% on the peace talks. i can't think of any reason why

anybody except a warmonger would want to do different. but then i go to the ukraine now that is another story. i don't agree with what is going on over there at all. it is a us-led nato, and now the u.s. has boots on the ground. they say they are advisors, but alice -- that is entirely gone. they are over there, they're going to train those people and between john mccain and victoria -- and biden's son over there the united states is showing more aggression over there in my opinion with nato. and they have toward that country apart, killed so many people and they complain about crimea?

those people are not hurting where the united states is involved. believe me, i'm a veteran. and i'm 100% for the united states being the greatest country on her. host: ok, richard. cognizant? guest: thank you for your service. one, the first question related to should we be engaged in peace talks at all. it is not an issue of whether there is disagreement in the congress about whether we should be engaged in negotiations or peace talks with the iranians. it is more a result of the discussion and debate on not whether or not there are bunch of warmongers want to go to war with iran, there are a bunch of people seeking a peaceful solution and they don't necessarily agree with the framework that has come out of the peace talks will far. maybe something cap is between now and june, we will just have to wait and see. the president may be able to go on tv and say, see? i told you so.

if it hasn't worked out the way we want it, then you will see the congress responds differently. i don't know that there is this big concern about whether or not there are actual talks going on. it is the result of the talks that give us a little bit of pause. secondarily, to the issue of ukraine, we have a soviet leader that is extraordinarily tough and skillful. i think with an intention of trying to reestablish the old soviet boundary. so watching what vladimir putin is doing in ukraine, i believe, can be instructed to our foreign policy, particularly to that region. so i believe we need to continue to stay engaged with the ukrainians. we ought to be providing them with assistance that goes beyond just giving them rations and providing some food, but actually providing some method of the fence. you have a pretty large nation track to overtake a very small one, and they should give every single american pause about what

is going on. host: regina, you are next. a republican. caller: good morning. i first want to commend the veteran. i want to truly and sincerely thank him for our service because i know he wants to defend this country. and i thank him for it. and also the man from indiana with his information. i want to try the -- to make this as quick as i can because since this is such a situation that is so full of so many factors, we have iran -- iran may be feeling the same heat that we feel under the cap and trade. the first bush signed a treaty that was called, i believe, a biodiversity treaty that basically started the process of this cap and trade. could it see that iran cease nuclear power is something that is clean and they are afraid that their power will be shut off" the natural gas -- coal and

natural gas will be shut off? that is weatherman from indiana -- was so fundamental why the man from indiana was so fundamental. -- why don't you guys tell me how you are going to stabilize our u.s. border? and tell me how are u.s. troops under constitutional authority need to go and support the people coming into this country that are grabbing our rights, our gains, our social security and tell them that they cannot come? you have a porous border. why is it more important to take care of other countries and use of soldiers to be used up? host: all right, regina. a lot there. guest: you hit on a lot of different things, but i think i'm going to pin it to kind of

where you are going there at the end, related to immigration and what is going on, particularly on the southern order, and how porous it is. most americans are unaware of the complexity there. i know that you have concerns about the cost no role of our troops, but you also -- because to show role -- the cons titutional role of our troops. but a lot of the land is owned by individual property owners. you've got areas inside the new mexican desert that have been deemed environmentally sensitive . and certain environmental groups are preventing any kinds of fencing or wall being held there. so the american people have not asked to come to a place of agreement through their elected representatives on what border security should look like; however, i believe we are moving closer and closer to that end i

think you'll see in this congress a storm moved to secure that southern border. and then doing something related to the interior enforcement of those were have entered the country illegally. that is step number one of any primary immigration reform policy that has to happen. and i think we will be at a place where we are moving forward. host: are you for trade authority? guest: yes i am. you cannot have 535 members of congress negotiating a trade agreement. i have waited with the trade negotiators, letting them know that pictures -- interests are manufacturing-based but at some point, you have to have a negotiating team. and it can be 535 members of congress. however, i think it is the role

of congress to approve or reject. host: and do you like how the transpacific partnership is shaping up? guest: i do, at this point. i think there are some things i like to be -- like to see changed in respects to wisconsin's dairy industry. but i think that they have made good progress and i like to see something happen in this congress. host: alberta, virginia. an independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to ask the congressman several questions. the first one concerns the four american citizens who are being imprisoned illegally in iran. i would like to ask him -- there is actually a part of the u.s. code entitled release of citizens imprisoned by foreign

governments. and i am dismayed that these men are being held in prison. one man has been there for over three years. another has been there for several years. what can congress do about the release of these four men? host: i am going to have the congressman respond to that. guest: i appreciate you bringing that up. in any negotiated with the iranians, we have to have a resolution to americans being held in prison over there. that ought to be at the front end of any of our negotiations. citizens being held unlawfully in the iranian prisons ought to be released. as a pretext to a negotiation not as a result. host: alexandria, virginia. a democratic caller. caller: good morning how are you. guest: good, thank you. caller: yes, the story over

there the region is not about religion. it is about injustice and corruption. they are going to bring their corruption hit to the usa, believe me. i never trust those people over there. guest: all right. first of all, i wouldn't make as broad of a statement as you just made because religion plays an absolute role in it. anybody who watches what is going on with isis, they state their religious purposes every time they kill people. so there is a religious element to the discussion; however, there is also a corruption and human rights issue going on in parts of that region, as well . so that plays a role in how these governments are being destabilized and how they treat their own citizens.

you are right, that is a piece of it, but i would reject the premise that it is not about religion at all. host: a democratic caller. new jersey. you are on the air with reid ribble. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. thank you for coming on c-span. my question has to do with sanctions. my understanding is that congress can only vote on united states' sanctions. and it were -- relies on all p5 plus 1 being an agreement. haven't we lost all our leverage? guest: of course you have. unless the global economy will together with sanctions predominantly the major customers or suppliers of the iranian government, unless they move in step, sections can come

unglued. as we are seeing now with for the russians have done in the last few weeks it relation to others -- weapons going into iran. this is where the negotiating power of the group could actually beloved to get embedded result, if in fact everybody stands together. related to the issue of u.s. sanctions and any general agreements the u.s. would be engaged in, though sanctions are applied by the congress and then have to be lifted by the congress. host: rhode island, joseph. independent caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: you are talking about -- this goes back to 1948 when you up with those jews over there in israel. the bible will tire you, it is going to happen. the united states is going to get blowed up. host: we are going to move on. robert.

an independent caller. hi, robert. caller: yeah, hi. host: good morning. caller: my question would be this. i think that we can agree that the iranian government is a pretty repressive government. can we also agree that iran has not attacked any country in the region or anywhere else for probably the last couple hundred years? we see helmet countries the united states has attacked in, say, the last 20 years or so. and maybe that is one reason why the iranians, you know maybe -- may be a little bit afraid of the united states. host: and this tweet from a viewer says, is that no international law that allows all nations the right to defend themselves? why would those with nukes tell

others know -- no? guest: first of all, i would disagree with the premise that the iranians have not -- with anybody. prior to 1991 iraq and kuwait the iranians and the iraqis were at war. iran has been a state sponsor of terror, providing weapons training arms all of the two throughout the entire region. so there is a region that this is going on. related to the question on twitter, about nuclear weapons the real question have to ask is will the world be safer with more nuclear weapons or with less? without regards to other current countries have them are not come the world is safer with less to the power, not war. to the idea that collectively we should begin to diminish the

footprint, not expand the footprint, and nuclear weapons would be the position i would take. host: florence in florida. you are on the air. caller: thank you. why should we taxpayers give israel every year $8 million a year for their military and pay for their health benefits? they have about seven nuclear weapons themselves. why can't other countries have nuclear weapons? host: i think she said $8 billion, i think it is close to the $3 billion. guest: yes, it has been that way for the last several congresses. the idea that we are not going to provide some type of aid in the region to those partners are -- partners of ours who have been supportive of the u.s. policy and in general america and the united states i think would be wrongheaded push not be engaged in the region at some level.

we provide aid to the jordanians, the egyptians. where you are involved in foreign policy and have an economic impact, i believe that is a better strategy to eliminate or resist war then in fact the counter argument that says it creates it. host: and is the foreign aid to egypt and jordan on par with what we give to israel? guest: i wouldn't necessarily say it is on par. those issues of foreign aid are closely watched and monitored by the u.s. state department to provide a response to the requests that come from various world leaders. and you can to that foreign aid is out of balance at any given place, the path -- depending on your personal ideas, relationships with citizens in those countries. but at some point you must make a determination. foreign aid in the u.s. is about

1% of all spending. host: here is a tweet sanctions only hurt the citizens, not the government it is imposed on. guest: that, in fact, is an argument that is made. it is in part designed to do that so that the citizens themselves decide to make their own changes in said a government. i agree, however, if you relieve sanctions and then there is no pressure put on the rears governments that are driving the distraction -- the disruption in the region, then you can never get to a resolution. host: mark. hi, good morning. caller: i would like to say that u.s. foreign-policy in the past decade has not promoted democracy. you see in syria, we have made more terrorist groups, just like isis, increasing.

as you said with the other issue with sanctions, and causes people in countries like iran or cuba to suffer from economic sanctions. thank you. guest: all right. kind of a lot there, but the idea that the u.s. should just in essence remove its involvement is not how you're going to gain any type of peaceful resolution. but the idea that the u.s. should be working with its arab partners that understand the region, the dynamics within the economies, and within religion, that seems to me to be not a bad strategy. so the more that we can pull in partners to stabilize their own region and their own governments without u.s. soldiers doing it is a path toward. host: we have time for a few more phone calls here. we are talking with congressman reid ribble of wisconsin about

foreign-policy challenges. the phone numbers will be on the screen, so keep telling in this morning. we have time for a few more phone calls. let me ask you about this article, the story, in u.s. labs a race to stop iran. they read about scientists -- guest: yeah, i am not aware of it. it is going to be difficult for me to speak on it at this point. host: what to make of it? guest: i can tell you that oak ridge has the tendency to do the deep dive on science in general. that is what they are therefore.

we have some of the best nuclear mines in the world, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are advising the president. host: and what you make of u.s. efforts to be able to say, look, we know what you have iran? is an effective? doing note really what is going out? guest: i am not going to go into anything that is classified as a relates to what we do or don't know. but the fact of the matter is the iranians have been everything they can to hide the nuclear ambition from the world. host: let me ask you about cuba as well. another country that we had sanctions on. you said cuba is a distraction for the u.s.. especially when it comes to other threats could explain. guest: i don't know that the timing of the with president obama decided we are just going to begin to normalize -- host: and remove them from -- guest: the state sponsor of terror. they have provided some weapons abroad. they are a small enough nation

that at the end of the day, i do believe we have an opportunity there to maybe actually fix something set of on wrong over the past. as i mentioned earlier, i'm not in the same place that many of my republican colleagues are. but i'm not fully in line with where the president is because of a think he has been negotiating of a good deal for the u.s.. host: before we let you go, i have to ask you about 2016. some say that your governor would recommend. do you support him? guest: at this point, sure. i'm a friend of scott. i have spent a lot of time with him over the past couple years. i am anxious to hear more about what his vision is for america as i am about all of our candidates. i am looking for to a big debate that is going to go on. i think it is good for democracy. host: do think that is too big of a field? republicans in new hampshire are saying that they want to see a fight, but don't fight amongst yourselves. guest: yeah, but i think

fighting for ideas is important. i believe, ultimately, that the winner on both political parties is going to be the man or woman who comes up and paint that big 30,000 foot vision for the united states of what we can be if we can all work together toward a common goal and some common objectives. host: why do think governor walker would make a good president? guest: because i have seen him work in wisconsin. he has had a difficult financial situation that he took over four years ago. was able to turn that around, get to a balanced budget. we are facing very, very difficult challenges in this country economically. our entire human -- retirement programs are changing. it will require a leader that is willing to make some difficult choices. scott has shown that he can do that. host: congressman reid ribble appreciate your time. coming up next, we will talk

with democratic congressman michael capuano from massachusetts. he will be here to talk about regulations of wall street. and later, we will take a closer look at cyber security and legislation that is moving to the house this week. >> in 2003 a "new york times" reporter wrote several stories on the lead up to weapons of mass destruction. she was found in contempt in court and imprisoned in a federal jail or 85 days. sunday on "q&a," she talks about

her time in jail and her new book. >> i was in jail because i refused to reveal the identity of a source who my thought could not want his identity revealed. as you know, brian, protecting sources is the life blood of independent journalism. and i really felt that unless the people that i routinely spoke to, who had access to classified information, unless they could trust me to protect them, my sources would dry up. and eventually, i would just be writing for the government wanted you to write. so, i felt this was a question of rentable and a day really have much choice. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and specific -- and pacific. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering this spring on "booktv."

this weekend, we will be in maryland for the annapolis book festival. hearing from alberto gonzales and journalist james rise in -- risen. and will close out may at book expo america in new york city, where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming book. then in the first week of june we are live in chicago. including our three hour live in death program with lawrence wright. that is the spring on c-span2's "booktv." host: we want to welcome back to our table this morning congressman michael capuano democrat of massachusetts.

sir, we are approaching the five year anniversary of. frank -- of dodd frank. what do you think the impact of that law has been? guest: it is still evolving. i think it has been a good law overall. some of it has not yet been fully implemented, but overall it has done a reasonable job. it could be better if we get some better regulations finalized. and i think if we could clean up a handful of things, it would be better. but overall, i think it has done a very good job. it has kept the markets relatively stable and recovering. host: what needs to be cleaned up? guest: some monarch revocations on insurance companies and things like that. i think you are minor and relatively easy to do. host: and what are those issues? guest: there are some people that will just not do anything to fix any lot like this, unless they can repeal the entire thing or undermine it to a degree that old work anymore -- that it won't work anymore.

things like insurance capital standards, easy to do, but you can't do it if the majority keep tying it up with unrelated items. host: the former chairman of the federal reserve recently called for an overhaul of the financial regulatory system. he wrote, the system for regulating financial institutions and united states is highly fragmented, outdated and ineffective. guest: he is right, but that statement could of been set properly for the entire time i have been alive. i think that is correct. we do the best we can at the time we are able to do it. in. frank -- i dod -- in dodd frank, we got rid of a couple things.

the success in the new future is probably not good. host: what is outdated in the system? guest: well, i don't think we need a separate agency for the fcc and the ftc. it is all paper and it is the same types of things they trade on wall street. i think one of agency should be able to regulate 90% of that market, as opposed to splitting it down the middle. host: what about the regulations that were put on banks and the impact that that is having still to this day on the housing industry. you see first-time buyers not being able to get into the market because the lending restrictions are so tight. does that need to be reformed? guest: some of it does, some of it doesn't. the whole idea was to at some point say that there is a group of people were financially not yet qualified to hold a markets. so that to some degree is correct.

and the other part of it, for the sake of the session -- of discussion, i would personally like to commend them -- to be able to hold the mortgages. they can't do that anymore. i don't think that is good for the system or a community. that is the result of where we are at the moment. i would argue that everyone will say they agree with that, but we haven't been able to get that off the dime yet. host: what are they able to hold the mortgages yet? guest: they can do it, but it is not to their benefit. i think it should be significantly more. i think they should be encouraged to do it. host: does the incentive still exist for these banks to give a markets and later sell it off? guest: yes, it does. i think that is part of the problem. i would rather see those mortgages -- not all of them, but a majority of them being held in a local bank. host: what we have those

problems? guest: everyone is always concern about regulation. they say oh, my god. regulation is terrible. my argument is that regulation is not good or bad. the idea is to get the right amount of regulation. they are easy to know where some of the problems are -- and sometimes think -- things change. there are a lot of very intelligent he tried to make a lot of money will find ways around that. host: i want to ask about the front page story in the wall street journal, charges filed. a trader who operated out of his west london home was arrested by british authorities on u.s. charges that he helped cause the dow jones average to plummet 1000 points.

the new york times leads this raises concerns that one individual could have such an photo of the markets. guest: if it is true, it is a real problem. i find it difficult to believe that one person could do that much damage. at the same time, -- if he did, good for him. he has exposed the problems like a computer hacker. some 15-year-old kid in a four country could hack into the computer's, and as soon as you discover that they did this, you plug the hole. this case, for me, -- i don't know the details yet -- i have the same questions. if one person could do it, it is a real problem. host: so what was he doing? explain the type of trading. guest: i don't really understand it. he made $40 million in five minutes.

something like that. i don't really understand it all yet to be perfectly honest. it is something i knew most happening, but i don't know the details yet. host: does dodd frank deal with that? guest: no. we had a hundred problems on the table and we couldn't do with them all right away. this is a little bit of a separate issue. this didn't have much to do with the crashed record. so we were trying to deal with that. this has really come to life after the dodd frank bill was passed. there are some problems we had in relation to the high volumes trade. host: sort by to those who don't know what high-frequency training is. and doesn't need regulating? guest: i don't know that it needs regulating yet. i think it is investigation to determine whether it needs regulation.

there is usually a computer with some very smart people who have thrown some algorithms in the computer to trade right now read the second. and it literally happens in a blink. and it is all well and good, as long as it is being done in a legitimate way. but there are some allegations of information that they're based on his information they were not entitled to get. host: what about the factor of people buying to look like the trade is popular and make the price go up and later to the rounded solid? -- sell it? guest: that is the high-volume part. in this case it looks like he didn't even buy it. it looked like he was going to buy it and then didn't. host: let's get to some calls. tommy, you are up first in massachusetts. an independent caller. caller: high, greta.

you are the susan rook of today. congressman, i lived when you're the mayor. you and stephen lynch are two of the most independent democrats in congress. how do you feel about the bill seven years later? guest: i think it was a necessary item. i didn't like it, but it was necessary, it worked, and we have gotten more than a money back. we still have some individual companies who owes money, but overall, the taxpayers actually made money on the bailout. that wasn't the idea, but i still think it was necessary. i think it was the right thing to do. i wish we would have taken another week to tighten it up. i think there were a lot of holes, but overall, the concept was the right concept. it is not something i enjoy doing, but i think it was necessary. host: tommy, how do you feel

about it? caller: i think it was a mistake. let these banks fail on their own. i know they say it could have caused the depression, but i just think the ordinary people don't get rewarded for their incompetency. and these banks were. guest: and that is the part i don't like. i am the wonderful economist but i have been to represent some world-renowned economist. i put together three roundtables just for me -- and i have nobel prize winners and all caps of people who know the stuff better than i -- and i had 30 to 40 different economists say at the meetings, everything one of them, every one of them suggested we have to do something fast and something big. every one of them was uniform. there was not one voice -- again, they are more change in this than i am. host: wasn't ok to let lehman

brothers fail? guest: i think the answer is it is probably ok for a company here or there. it was never about one company. it was about the economy. one company surviving or not surviving, it is bad for the people working for that coming but that is not what we are doing. we thought there were too many interconnections that if one or more of these banks failed that they were so interconnected they would drag everybody else down. and that was the problem. individual companies failing is a tragedy for different reasons. host: bank of america was asked to take on merrill during that crisis. shareholders in return launched lawsuits against him for not running evidence of what merrill had imix books. and bank of america has been paying since. guest: like a said, i wish we would have had a little time to have deeper breath.

again, i have to look at it as a broad thing. believe me, there were a lot of things that i didn't like. host: do you think ken lewis preventively for the meltdown by agreeing to take on merrill? guest: i am not sure he had much of a choice. again, whether that individual decision was written america or not is a fair question, but for us, congress was not involved in individualist -- individual decisions. -- the answer is yes. i still think it was the right thing to do. with all the problems that did arise, i think in the long run it was better for the average american. host: john, a republican. you're on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. i didn't hear me get put on the

air, so i guess i am on the air. host: you are, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yeah, it just seems ironic to me that the swansong for dodd frank with the senator from connecticut and barney frank from massachusetts, they put the thing together. they didn't run for reelection. i was thought there was something fishy about that. i hear people say that this is a problematic bill, you don't want to repeal any of it. i think the whole thing should be repealed. i think the government was responsible for fannie mae and freddie mac to force banks to give these worthless mortgages out. then you blame the banks when they are forced to take these things and pass them on to somebody else. then when it hit the fan everybody is blaming the banks. i understand there was a community reinvestment program back in carter -- to carter that started this.

and to make heroes out of dodd frank when they show who they were when they decided not to be in congress anymore. host: all right, john, let the congressman respond. guest: that was a republican proposal i voted against, and i am glad i did. as far as the rest of that, i don't know where you're getting your information. fannie and freddie did participate, but the didn't force anybody to do it. as far as i'm concerned, the banks would have the problem. but if i had to put in order who was the top problem it would be the unregulated financial services industry who is probably the number one villain in all of this. host: i think what john is referring to, though, is congress putting pressure on fannie mae and freddie mac to do more. guest: and now will take the heat on that. it was never to bundle these things and sell junk bonds. the pressure that i participated in during the study get more

people into home ownership. i am not ashamed of that. i do think that people like me might have pushed a little farther than we should have. but given the choice of seeing one or two people should get more than they shouldn't -- i think all motor ship is the main way in the middle class for most americans. visit a difficult balance -- is it a difficult balance? host: when did you cross the line? guest: by not being clear. i never knew they were giving out no documentation loans. that is crazy. at the same time, i would take my share of the responsibility for not stepping back and say oh, how did you meet the push we had? how did you meet that criteria? someone had said we did no documentation loans, i would've said, wait a minute. host: how were they able to do

that without congress know what they are doing? guest: that happens all the time. i looking at the number of people whose home ownership went up. and that was probably 2%, 5% higher than it should have been for the given economy, which is a problem. that has nothing to do directly with saying you should have no documentation loans, that you should worry about how anybody makes to repay the loan. that is a whole different ballgame. honestly, that is what i said earlier. the financial services industry is always going to be faster and smarter than any government, including me. and we are always one step behind. when we catch up on occasion, it is our responsibility to say wait a minute. you have gone a little too fast a little too far. and on this particular case,

everybody was going to fast and too far because there's too much money on the table. host: baltimore, maryland. mark. a democrat. caller: hello, i wanted to make a comment about the topic we are just talking about. i read an article about how they -- the predatory lending that is still going on, even after the reform, when it comes to the auto industry. and that there is still a lot of subprime auto loans that are being bundled and sold. are you familiar with this topic? as do think that there's any chance this could be reformed? guest: at the moment, probably not because the appetite for reform has waned. honestly, congress always react better to reacting to a crisis, rather than preventing one. the problems your outline on auto loans is real, as far as i'm concerned.

i agree with you. i don't know that it threatens the entire economy because it is not quite as widespread, but it is a problem and now like to take more action. i think this efp -- thecf -- host: brian in michigan, in independent. caller: hi, can you hear me? host: we can. caller: not to be critical, but the last time i got a question answered through program was when brian was hosting. all the other times, i have heard the potomac two-step. so i am asking the favor from you. congressman, i ran to the lobbying bills. instead of giving it to all the things -- your rules for lobbying, let's talk about two. my suggestion is that all lobbying has to be done in the representatives' office or in the business as you are being

lobbying from. you don't have to state your business but you have to login and logout just as any admiral would when he is visiting a ship. and in admiral is certainly more powerful than any congressman. the second thing is very simple. anyone, including yourself or your staff members, white house staff members, anyone inside the representatives and the staff mers can never be old work for a lobbyist. so i'm asking a direct question. i'm asking the moderator, keep this man point. just these two points, please. guest: thank you for the call. i respect your opinion. i think you have identified a solution to something that is not a real problem. host: why do you think it is not a real problem? guest: lobbies have been around for a long time. the girl scouts have lobbyists. what's the problem with this? everyone who comes to see me as

lobbying. the question is, how do i vote? if i vote in the interests of lobbyists and only lobbyist, that is the problem. if i vote in the interests of my constituents, what is the problem? i have lots of universities in my district. every one of them has a lobbyist. if they come to ask me to do something and i do it, do i do it for the lobbyist or graduate for the constituents? my life is about as public as any human being in the world except for the president of the united states. i think the solution will not change anything. host: but the girl scouts to not have as much money as the wall street banks. guest: i'm 100% with you. i would love to get money out of the campaigns. i think we spent to much money on campaigns and i would -- i have worked with anybody who has ever tried to walk in my office to get money out of the campaigns. host: ok. let's go to hollywood, florida.

cindy, a republican. caller: good morning, congressman. actually, two questions. rolled up into one. i used to be a traitor, and by that -- trader. and by that i was in stocks. akin the time that i did this, and it was wonderful because it worked, there was something in the market called lock limit up and lock limit down. and what it was was if the market in anything moved a certain amount, automatically trading was halted. so your flash crash of 2010 could not possibly have happened. so, here's my question. why did congress remove that, which did protect our economy making it fair for everybody? and second, one of your other callers talked about how congress does a two-step when

they make bad decisions, it is ok because they are in congress -- which, by the way, hard to everybody by removing those -- then they go, we blame everybody else. i think with the people of the united states are trying to tell you is that, a new is not always better. two, listen to the people -- listen to the people of the united states. if it telling you that our economy cannot do this because that is basically what these complaints are, we're spending too much money here, too much money there -- yes, you are in that district, but, sir, you are still elected. all around this country, we are telling -- we are trying as best we can to tell a congress you will be unelected. host: ok, cindy. congressman?

guest: i could be unelected every two years. that is the democratic process and that is perfectly fine. i actually think i do listen to the people who elect me. that doesn't mean that everyone of my constituents agree with me or agree with me on every point or any point. it just means that the majority do. that's how we get elected. as far as the other item goes, i'm not aware that congress did that. i will actually look into that after this program because i was under the impression that it was done by regulation. host: that would've prevented this flash crash. guest: i have to honest. i have to check it i thought it was done by regulation, but i'll check. she's 100% right. the concept of what she is talking about is exactly the way they should be limited. a lot of it should be flexible, but again, this was removed

before there was this computer-driven trading that we have now. i will check. she raises a good point. host: this happened in 2010. why didn't i get put back into place? guest: we haven't been able to agree on pretty much anything in congress. even some of these easy reforms like don-frank. -- this is an really dodd frank. it's a difficult item. a lot of people think the market should be able to do whatever the market wants to do, including flash crashes. there are some that think for reasonable regulation and thinks it's a better form for america. host: is the lobbying on four people who want regulation? guest: it's usually for people who don't want regulars in. when it comes to spending, i've been politics since i was a

conga's men and mayor and city council member. i've never had anyone walk into my office and say cut my program. cut the program that i'm interested in. they always say cut other programs, but mine is different. mine is the most important one and therefore should never be cut. the day i get someone to come in and say cut my program, i think i am talking to someone who understands the broad base really have to deal with. host: we will go to winthrop, maine. helen, democratic olive. -- caller. caller: c-span had a representative a few days ago and she mentioned a lot of the problems with ttp. she in particular talked about financial regulations and implications in the trade deal for financial regulations. i'm wondering if you could expand upon that. and you have any concerns about ttp in regards to financial regulations?

guest: i've deep concerns with tdp on many regulations. many are talking about the basis of what they think they know and they're kind of guessing and reading tea leaves. i really try to stay away from that because is dangerous. it does not mean i don't listen to all these conversations and try to form my own opinions. what i don't make a final opinion until i see the actual bill, or in this case, an agreement. i don't know specifically what they were talking about it i would agree. for me i'm 100% pro-trade. i'm 100% pro-fair trade. i'm not looking to give anyone an advantage. i'm not necessarily looking for in advance for america. i want a level playing field for everything. that generally hasn't been the case. in the asian market in general i won't speak ttp in particular. but in general their markets are less regulated and more fluid.

they are significantly less stable as far as i'm concerned. the question is -- when we deal with any entity that does things differently, which are we going to? are we going to the highest standard, which more and often than not is what the u.s. does or the lower standard? as farce ttp goes, i won't speak to specifics because there is no agreement yet and nothing we have seen. i have to stay away from that for a little bit, or it's like me guessing just like everyone else. host: that will give the president fast-track to the legislation. the senate is marking up. you are against it. guest: i'm not for the fast-track proposal. i will load to see. -- wait to see it. host: it something there were some concessions made to democrats. that would give the public and congress more time to read the trade bill and get the public 30 days before congress can even weigh in. guest: i will see. in general, the concessions to

democrats who are interested in trade are democrats who i don't share this value with your not all democrats are like that and not all republicans are like when it comes to trade issues. some democrats are more open to them and some less. i will personally since. when i see them, i will believe them to make a final decision. i find it hard to believe that they will be able to do it in a manner that will get my vote. host: it sounds like today any sort of trade agreement would be left to the next president because of the way this all works out. if it were to come to the floor, it would be in the throes of the 2016 election. so given that, what do you want to hear them hillary clinton the declared democrat in the race so far on trade? guest: i want to hear something unfair trade and not just that all trade is the same. i think america has been hurt deeply by nafta and of the bills

that we have had. the whole idea has been a race to the bottom on wages as far as i'm concerned. it is gust to the middle class and sends jobs overseas. i see a fee increase in other jobs. it does to some extent, but i want an america that has a broad-based economy and not just an economy that is based on computers and paper. i want us to actually make something again. the ones that we do, we do well. because it has been a race to the bottom on wages, i don't blame the companies. they have to make a dollar. i blame us for having policies that encourage that kind of race to the bottom. host: do you trust hillary clinton on trade? guest: trust? i guess. it's not a matter of trust. it's a matter of whether i agree or not. i would not have voted for nafta. i will have to listen to hillary to see how she feels about it. i did 20 things -- things your 20 years ago -- i did things 20

years ago and i change. i like to hear from her on what she would do with nafta today. that would tell me and informed me. i'm not a one issue guy. even it i were to disagree with hillary clinton on trade, there are other issues that i will want to hear about and she may overcome on that. host: kathy, an independent colored. caller: how are you all doing? guest:: i'm doing great. caller: it's nice to hear home voice. guest: are you from new jersey? caller: yes. i have a few comments. the people are constantly being told by republicans that the people one of them and that is why they have the votes. and the seats of the half. people need to know that after

the 2010 census that they gerrymandered the country. to make the seats for the republicans safe into gerrymandered more seats. a good example south carolina. the 2% of people voted democrat -- 52% of people voted democrat and 10 out of 13 elected positions went to republicans. 10 out of 13, 52% voted democratic. anyway, this is just a thought. this is one-to-one to say. the way the banking industry works is that they keep 10% capital for the dodd frank. this means that if they have a million dollars, they went out $11,000. the bank that got the $900,000

only has to keep 10%. it keeps on going and going and going. the original money is a factor of nine every time you go down. that is where you have this amount of money that is being shipped out and read loans. -- readloaned. host: kathy, do you have a question? caller: i'm trying to explain. the people were not the problem when these mortgages were brought out. it is the process of loaning as well as the repackaging out. that i think is where a lot of the problem is. the people got blamed. it wasn't. it was wall street. it was a repackaging. host: cognition. -- congressman. guest: it's interesting how you described it.

in 2008, it was that complications. we close that up a little bit. there was some reason to have that, but it was not used fairly well. it was loaned to another to another with no assets underwriting the loan. the problem is that they have not come up with collateralized loan obligations. someone have to explain that to me. it is the same problem. the problem is that congress like a month ago pass the bill acyclic said it was ok. it is not pass the senate, so it is not want. it was stunning to me because i don't agree with all of your descriptions in general, but i think it was true. because it is complicated, i think a lot of people have not learned a lesson. i want to go back to the gerrymandering for one second. gerrymandering is not new. it was named after a massachusetts general and -- gentleman and was a revolutionary war hero. gerrymandering is not new. we are never going to get rid of it.

it will shift to does it, but it's going to get done. i think democrats were better off when we understood that it is not a pretty process legislating. i think we need to get more engaged for the exact reasons you just mentioned. everyone knows that and 2010 -- in 2010, there were more people who voted for democratic members of the house then republicans members in the house, but we were down 13 because of gerrymandering. democrats used to be better than that. there are those of us who have to say that it is not ready -- pretty and we have to do. if we get gerrymandered, we have to fight back. it's like campaign finance reform. i don't like coming to raise this money, but i'm not going to unilaterally disarm. when it comes to district drawing as well, what they do to us, we should do to them. i know that sounds harsh and nasty, but it's an going on since the beginning of this country and work pretty well for a couple hundred years.

unfortunately, politics is not necessarily a pretty thing to watch. host: joseph, a republican. caller: good morning. use ago, ron paul warned us of the 2008 crash coming. again, tim and his son is warning us of another crash that is coming. an american people would be well served if they knew what the fed was doing in up to, but they're doing and who they oh money to that no one can get answers from them. my question to you is -- would you sponsor a bill to audit the fed? we need to see what those guys are doing. guest: i did not sponsor wants bill. i love ron paul. i don't agree with him on many things, but he is a great man and i really respect. it is easy to see another crash coming. it is. i don't know when and where.

it is going to rain. when it is going to rain and where it's going to rain is a whole different story. first of all, dodd frank didn't rain the fed back in. -- did rain the fed back in. it was a bipartisan law with people i don't normally agree with anything on. it was the power that they actually used to drive a holder some of the limitations that we put on it. there are many of us that a greek that they went too far on certain things and were less transparent. we are trying to fix those transparencies. auditing the fed is a nice, easy term. it doesn't get to the root of the problem. i'm not interested in looking behind the closed doors of every bank that they regulate because you will have banks move back even further. i'm interested in getting the work right. getting the work right is getting them held up by the state of the law as needed. host: thomas in massachusetts.

caller: good morning. my question has to do with the home affordable program that was funded. i wonder -- it is set to expire at the end of this year. the program is designed to help with struggling homeowners. what do you expect of the future of the make your home affordable program? you think it will be extended? in the amount of money that was allocated from the top from the making home affordable program how much has been spent and how many homeowners have actually been help today? guest: i cannot answer the last two specific questions. as far as it being extended, i will tell you that it's probably not going to be extended. congress has shifted from when the time it was passed out. the people who were public --

who run it now are publicans at the top and i want -- a republicans at the top and are likely to do it now. it didn't work as we hoped. it's nothing wrong with trying something that is our. if it doesn't work, you try something else. no one anointed me with all the correct answers. i wish it happened, but you try to do things, these programs work ok for some taxpayers and homeowners. it didn't work perfectly. there are still some work to do. a lot of the crisis has stabilized. there are a handful people left out there rent a. they are going to be left on the lurch a little bit as these programs expire. we have someone at the fha doing a much better job at these programs. it helped so much over some of time. host: let's hear from kevin and indiana. a republican. caller: yes.

i appreciate your time here talking about the issues. my question is -- during 2008 at that time, i was working as an electrician. i didn't understand that if our taxes kept going up and up and you couldn't afford these loans some people who got the loans that maybe it wouldn't today -- some of them are still in their homes. some of them are still successful. i just want to know how much of an impact do you think, with everybody's talking about gas again being five dollars a gallon back in 2008, why did we

act like there were no resources and no way to address financially about the gas situation? six years later, we have all this oil. i think when the american people call in. i'm a business owner. i don't have to go to my factory job anymore any day. i think that's what people question the federal reserve. they question the senators. they question the process of democracy, which is what you talked about. in general, congress should be proactive about -- ok, how did people lose their homes? if they are spending an actual $150 a week to get a good paying job, that affects their paycheck

and the amount of payment on their house. my question is -- why didn't you look into that and why were we lied to saying that there was no oil? guest: i don't think anyone said there was no oil. it is a matter that at the time the u.s. was not doing fracking and fracking has punched up the amount of energy here. i think you have to understand that a lot of people talk about congress as if it is one person making one decision. it is for 35 members of the house and 100 members of the senate and the president, all of whom are strong-willed individuals, who come from different corners of the country, and all of whom who have different ideas on most every issue. it would be nice if one person could run the country as long as that one person was me. if it wasn't me, i probably wouldn't be too happy. therefore, democracy has always been messy and will always be messy. there will be arguments on the big important issues as there were in 2008.

and in our energy policies and financial services. that is what we do here. the only alternative is dictatorship. again, i'm for dictatorship as long as i'm dictator. other than that, i am for democracy as messy as it is. i want to be real clear. i think americans should question all the things that you mentioned and more. i do, too. that is one of the reasons why it led me to politics. why is this happening? why isn't this happening? why can't these good things happened to me? that's what drove me to politics to be perfectly honest. if there was a single answer that would answer all those questions, i don't know it. i just know it is a street battle that no one gets killed that. host: michael capuano has been in congress for his ninth term, representing his six district. a finance democrat on the housing insurance subcommittee.

we will go to cornelia. guest: that was last you. host: still on financial services. republican in idaho, cornelia, go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to think this representative. he is honestly the first democrat i've heard on c-span and many, many years that does not constantly, every other sentence, demonize republicans and say, oh, it is the replicants fault for this and that. but anyway, to be honest, you have an italian name it looks like. you have got to have some catholicism in your background. guest: i do. caller: i hope you do not support abortion. guest: i support choice. caller: through the obamacare they are trying to force nuns to provide services that are

against their conscience. i just think obamacare is government top-down health care that we need to start over and do something that is actually constructive for our country. i do think health savings accounts should be explained to the american people. i heard once that if the government put a million dollars in every american citizens health savings account, it would actually be less expensive than obamacare. host: we have to run. we will have to compass and responded -- congas and respond. guest: first of all. i am pro-choice. i'm not imposing my morals on others. a can have their own decision. as far as obamacare goes, it is not a perfect law. health care from the top down -- isn't that medicare and medicaid that we all love so much?

simply, i would've taken medicare and medicaid and expanded eligibility forms. it would cut most people. people would've been more satisfied with it. the people that oppose obamacare here in washington are the very same people that have opposed medicare and medicaid for 40 years. they just think that everybody should be on their own with health care. i understand that position. i just don't agree with it. i don't agree with it because i have been to emergency room. every time i go to an emergency room, i don't have what it takes and i don't want to have it to turn and say to 20% of the people on the emergency room that you, miss 90-year-old woman who fell down and broke her hip you don't get fixed because you don't have health care. you 10-year-old child who broke your elbow you don't get fixed because your parents don't have health care. i want to live in a country where we fix our people. i'm not going to defend everything about obamacare. i've many problems with it

myself. i don't get to vote on a perfect will. i get to vote on a big bill and its yes or no. my question is always -- is the bill directing us and the direction i want to go in or is it not? with the aca, my vote is yes. it is not perfect i far or by any means -- and by the way, i disagree with you on the resumption that is forcing nuns to do something against their religion. that is not the intention. the laws pretty clear on the constitution that the government cannot allow people to say that this is my up religious beliefs and i am imposing my religiously funny. i am a catholic. i love my church and i respect my church's opinion on most things. i think they are perfectly entitled to have their opinion. they are not entitled to tell non-catholics or some catholics to tell anyone else what to believe. they are entitled to offer their beliefs and have people choose

on her own and not to impose on someone else. i would say the same thing about health care. host: thank you very much for your time this morning. i appreciate the conversation. coming up next our spotlight on magazine serious will continue. we will take a closer look at cyber security efforts and united dates. we will talk with "christian science monitor's" michael farrell after the break. ♪ >> she was considered modern at her time. she was called mrs. the president at her time. she was outspoken on her views on slavery in women's rights. as one of the most prolific writers of any first later she provided a great clips of colonial life. abigail adams on c-span's original series "first ladies:

image." looking at life of first ladies and the influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama, on american history tv on c-span3. as a comment to the cp, c-span book is now available. presidential historians on the lives of iconic american women. providing lively stories a fascinating women and creating an illuminating, entertaining, and inspiring read. it is available as a hardcover or e-book the favorite bookstore on -- or online bookseller. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: in a last hour on wednesdays, we take a look at magazine articles as part of our online -- ongoing spotlight magazine serious. the christian science monitor has the story -- "how effective

is u.s. cyber security?" joining us from boston is michael farrell the cyber security editor for "christian science monitor." they take a look at these issues. he is here to talk about cyber security. michael farrell, let us begin with the question that you post. how effective is u.s. cyber security? guest: thanks for having me on. that is the big question that everyone wants to. -- to know. frankly, they're pretty high profile incidents that show that in some cases it is not very effective at all. you see cases like the high-profile sony hack, the other health-care breaches, and it seems like every week there is a new kind of vulnerability discovered on some sort of popular app or software that we all use. the other side of that is that a lot of things we don't hear about is that good cyber

security measures are preventing things are happening. it is pretty good, but it could be a lot better and that is what we are seeing now in congress. the industry as a whole talking about how to make cyber security more robust and present it a lot of the things from happening that in a way are often the result of not a technology problem, but kind of a human problem. people clicking on e-mails they shouldn't and letting hackers into their systems. there are two sides to the going. some people say it needs to be a lot better but in some instances, it is pretty good. host: how does it compare to other countries who are not only on the defensive when it comes to cyber security, but on the offense of as well -- offense of hisive as well? guest: comparing the other countries, the one thing to keep in mind is that u.s. companies and assets are one of the most under attack.

you talk about the financial sector, the health sector, or the u.s. government agencies. social media companies, they are all sort of -- a lot of that is censored in the u.s.. it is a u.s. centric view, but that is the nature of the technology industry in the financial industry. the u.s. is a bigger target so it has much more to protect. in that way, it is some of -- sort of unfair to compare how u.s. is stacked up compared to the rest the world. part of your question is the offensive act of cyber security and digital offenses and that is sort of more of something that is happening in the government. i think most people would say that the nsa, when they think about the agency, those revelations are probably the

best that carrying out cyber defenses or cyber offenses in that regard. host: how is the administration though in this post edward snowden era, pushing cyber security efforts to combat it while also trying to assure americans that their privacy will be respected? guest: that is a difficult balancing act. what you see happening right now in congress and especially in the house as they consider cyber security information sharing bills is how to balance this issue between consumer and individual privacy and ensure that the private sector and the government is better equipped to handle tax. with these bills that are moving forward this week in the house the big issue with some of them,

and especially from privacy advocates, is that they don't go far enough to protect the consumer identity. they sort of lead the way to the government having more access on individuals than they would have previously. i think what we have learned about the nsa's metadata collection program, sort of bold mass surveillance operation that was revealed as a result of the edward snowden weeks -- leaks. there is this concern about what the government knows about us and what they have access to. that debate is holding up -- especially the white house's efforts to move through the cyber security information sharing act that obama is pushing for an in favor of.

because of those privacy concerns and because the revelations of the nsa, there are certainly privacy advocates who come out strongly against these bills. also many in the cyber security industry say that they are worried about the privacy protections that are in place in these bills moving through congress right now. host: house republicans have tried over the past few years to push to bills that are making their way through the house again this week. in fact, the house will take them up today and debate on these two pieces of legislation. last night, congressman jim langman came to the floor and talked about the bill. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> tomorrow and thursday, the house will be considering to pieces of information legislation and i commend the leadership of the intelligence and homeland security committees for their bills. as cochair of the congressional cyber security caucus i am glad of the house is once again taking the lead to protect our

networks, both public and private, from attack, as was looking to protect privacy and civil liberties. i'm also home full -- hopeful that unlike the past two congresses that my colleagues in the house and senate will find a copy must to get the bill to the president's desk. mr. speaker, it is important to codify information framework to turn our attention to other challenges in the cyber domain. from data breaches to critical infrastructure protection, our evermore connected world in shores that there will be further need -- ensures that were there will be further need to act. i commend the leadership committee for their attention to this issue and i yield back the balance of my time. host: michael farrell, what is your reaction to hearing his layout of the bill? he says that these two bills that they are going to debate on in the house will protect u.s. networks. guest: i think the sentiment

that he expresses is something that is shared throughout the house. both of these bills tend to have a broad bipartisan support, but what he didn't mention or didn't really go into detail on where the details. that is where you get the rub and how there are a couple of key issues in these bills that a lot of people are concerned about. one is liability protection for companies and protecting them if they, for instance, don't act on threat information that they may have. the obama administration has said that they don't want liability protections for companies that fail to act if they had knowledge that they had a particular type or vulnerability. the integration go -- the other issue is where does the information go. that is when to be a key sticking point as these bills move forward and as similar

bills move forward in the senate. there is a tremendous effort, a lobbying effort among experts and advocates to ensure that they have greater privacy protections built in. that is also something that the obama administration has said they want in the bill. while generally supporting them, he still has called for changing the liability protections and also increasing the privacy measures. host: it is not just congress as michael farrell is talking about that is moving on cyber security. it is the president as well. he issued to executive orders on cyber threats. one paved the way for economic sanctions against foreign hackers. the other enables intelligence sharing between the private sector and the fed. we want to take your questions and comments about cyber security efforts in the country. michael farrell of "the

christian science monitor." he is the editor for their cyber security page tax code. you can find that on their website. before we get take calls, explain how information sharing would work and what is the impact on consumers. guest: theoretically, these measures in congress would pave the way to create a mechanism for private companies and the government to more effectively share information. by information, we basically mean that if one company has intelligence that there are some criminal hackers acting in such a way in eastern europe and they are carrying out attacks and they have discovered a particular vulnerability that is letting them in to financial software, the theory is that if companies, corporations, and other organizations have the information that they can

quickly patch those vulnerabilities and prevent the hackers from breaching their systems to begin with. the real question is whether or not that could work in reality. how quickly the information can be shared, whether the government needs to get in the business of facilitating information sharing, and a lot of these innocent already frankly exist. that is one of the chief complaints within the security industry is that the information sharing and legislation just creates more bureaucracy. on top of programs that frankly already exist and in some instances work really well. the scary industry like many industries, like the financial sector and provider such as utilities, they are already sharing tremendous amounts of information. they are effective and maybe not as effective as they should be in spreading the knowledge

around. then adding this later of bureaucracy on that some say what inevitably slow down the process. how this relates to consumers is that if companies are better protected, then therefore, the information they contain about members, whether it be social security numbers, their financial information, such as credit card numbers or bank account information will be better protected and therefore consumers will be safer. let us hear from angela and washington, d.c.. you are at first. host: good morning to you. you are on the air. one last call for angela. the question on cyber security. go ahead, angela. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i have a question for

the gas. can he had just the outgoing attorney general in the contest -- context of information sharing on terrorism? and if the incoming attorney general has charges on assaulting a police officer? has that information to disclose prior to her nomination? guest: that is a different kind of information sharing them what we are talking about with cyber security legislation. host: that is not something that you are covering. we are talking about the government's efforts on cyber security. what about the industries themselves? what are they doing to safeguard consumer data? guest: there's a tremendous effort and a tremendous industry built around protecting consumer identity, protecting financial data and what you do see

happening, even though a lot of people care about cyber security really in the context of bad things happening, like the sony attacks or health care breaches, financial breaches, that sort of thing, there is constant evolution and improvement on ways to protect sensitive data that is going on right now. and fact, -- in fact, this week in congress they turned it cyber week. at the same time, there is the biggest cyber security conference in the country happening in san francisco. there's this tremendous effort nationwide and internationally as well to figure out what the industry and what government can do to protect us as more and more of our lives are spent in the digital realm. host: at this conference in san

francisco, who is there and who is talking to who and why is that important? guest: it is an annual industry conference and it allows the chance for cyber security practitioners to come together to share and learn from one another. this year, i think it is particularly interesting because there is a great deal of washington involved there. the reason why people like michael daniel, the white house cyber security czar, travel to san francisco this week is that they need to go to the cyber security industry to make information sharing work and effective. even if these bills become law the information shingles, they need to support and concerted effort among the industry to prove the utility of information sharing when it comes to a government level. they are there to sort of repair relations with the technology industry, which have been

fraught especially since the snowden revelations. that is why washington is there. the industry which is booming at the moment is also looking to sell their products to washington. host: you say it is booming. what kind of money are we talking about? guest: i can't remember the most recent figures, but we are talking about multibillion-dollar and hundreds of billions of dollars in money and entire market size. i may be overestimating that but it's big. we are talking about -- not only is the private sector side of this growing but there is a vast amount of government funding and foundation money pouring into universities to start new for cyber security programs in places like stanford and berkeley and m.i.t..

he would think that these places are already the training ground for the digital defenders and the next generation, but in fact what has happened at a lot of universities is that they just don't have the intersection of security and computer engineering. you are seeing that change. you are sing a tremendous amount of investment from the venture capital community into new cyber security startups. host: let's get to calls. kim indiana. caller: i just want to say that i believe that part of the reason that credit card companies have done a wonderful job is because they have a self-interest. they are making sure that my information is not shared because i could deny a claim or charge. if i don't want use that credit card or i don't believe that they have a good system for security, i'm not going to choose that card company.

i don't really understand why the government needs to be involved with private industry. host: ok. michael farrell. guest: the caller brings up a couple of good points. one is that i think in terms of who is the best at permitting these breaches, the financial sector is among the best because they have to have something at stake. it is costing them tremendous amounts of money. there is an incentive there to battle this and find it quickly. frankly, they are effective. they have put in good protections for consumers. so my credit card and number is stolen and someone goes around making charges for something i'm protected from that and i'm not responsible for paying those fees. the other point is whether the

government needs to get involved. this is something else that the industry certainly has questions on. i think from the obama administration's point of view, or at least what they have said is that even though some industries are good, other industries are inserted. the idea is that you can take some knowledge and insert -- expertise from some industries and spread to other industries that aren't doing enough to guard consumer data. host: yuri come pennsylvania. tom, republican. -- yuri, pennsylvania. tom, republican. caller: i want to make the charge on c-span that your guest there has to admit that the reason that we are in this current jam right now with cyber security is that because the internet was set up with the

intent of giving commercial interest, back to information, backdoor access to everybody else's business. that is why we are in this jam now. the second point i want to make is that these countries that allow this to go on -- and i say allow being generous because i suspect that countries like russia and china and north korea are actually encouraging people to do this. these countries that do this -- the only thing they understand this they have to pay for having it go on. somebody has got to admit that there has to be sanctions against these countries. as long as the u.s. is in a position where our business interests are making money and china, we're never going to do it. host: let us talk sanctions with

michael farrell. caller: guest: obama has issued an executive order that give sanctions to countries that have engaged in hacking with u.s. corporations. the evidence is fairly clear that that happens quite often. others would charge of the u.s. is doing similar if not same things. that certainly has been -- we certainly see from the snowden documents -- the evidence is there that the government is also engaged in espionage of a certain level. i guess the debate is whether that is in essential or not. -- essential or not. there are things going forward against entities in china and

other countries that we know have used hacking to gain access to sensitive industrial, financial information. as regard to backdoors as a way into your spy on people or gain access to personal information i don't think the internet was set up with that intent. you think about how long ago the idea of the internet came about and probably no one imagined that everyone would be carrying around it smartphone with all their personal data on it or that we would have facebook or twitter or snap chat. or just the amount of data that is stored on the internet. i just cannot fathom -- we don't have a crystal ball to see that four in the future when setting up the internet. with that said, there's

certainly a fierce debate about encryption in the u.s. right now , obviously hitting the fbi and the nsa against the technology center. the nsa and the fbi would like to have access to encrypted data. that is essentially is in response to some of the tech companies like google and apple strengthening their encryption technologies post snowden revelations. there's this battle going on between the government and the private sector on how to gain access to data as consumer and consumer products are becoming more secure frankly. that is part of the argument that is something certainly true and taking place. host: in lubbock, texas, bill republican. go ahead. caller: you are probably going

to have a better contact there. i see this as two types of a cyber issue here. i see it as a situation to where we have governments of foreign countries such as china that has been mentioned, but i see modern-day espionage and sabotage directed against the united states government. that is the first thing that i see. the second thing that i see is where you see the cyber security involving credit cards and personal permission. this is primarily coming from third world countries like nigeria, india, and mexico. people tempting to steal money. you are in the know there. the foreign governments are not self relative the united states and hacking us and tried to get to vital information, security information, which i consider to be modern-day espionage or sabotage. then you have these third world countries that i've mentioned that plan to attack to still money. -- to steal money primarily from

the general public of the united states of america. with that being said, that is my assessment of what is going on. with that being said, when we have these incidents, i don't understand why the united states sanctions -- they are talking about sanctions. we could good some 14 euros kid in the united states of america and they could probably hack into these government type things. i know how they do that. it is not very hard to track. it is modern-day espionage. let's go back and hit them the same way that they are hitting us. host: michael farrell, are we heading back? -- hitting back? guest: i'm not sure if we are hitting back. the caller brings up a fascinating point. i agree with him on the fact that we are talking about cyber security and breaches and

incursions that it is modern-day espionage. this is what is going on. this is how companies are stealing information. these are how governments are eavesdropping. it is just the nature of the digital world that we live in. so the governments on the companies that engage in espionage are just using the best tools that are available at the moment. the idea of sort of hitting back or as the industry calls hacking back is something that is fiercely debated. this was also something that came up, especially intensively calling -- following the sony hacks. so after the sony hacks happened , there was this debate within the government -- not within the government, but between cyber security specialist and the government if sony was responsible or for north korea was responsible. if north korea was responsible how do we respond?

we did see some responses. in fact, you saw some sort of instances of hacking back. not soon after that -- sorry north korea's internet went down. who was responsible for that? i'm not sure. how is the government hitting back in certain ways? i would be surprised if there weren't efforts to go after their own criminal hacking networks or shutdown attacks especially on sensitive government installations are critical infrastructure that could be happening. the bigger question is -- how does then the private sector go after criminal hackers? then that becomes a legal question because it currently is against the law for someone to break into someone else's network. to go after a hacker, you would

have to break into someone else's network to shut them down. is a legal question -- it is a legal question of hitting back in some capacity. the caller brought up some 14 role kid in his basement. there are hacker groups that engage in these tit-for-tat cyberattacks and they go on. i do not think that we are hitting back in any kind of conservative official way yet. host: baltimore, michigan. an independent caller. caller: in regards to identity theft, i wonder about the burden of the that. it was placed on the retailer instead of the consumer because if they steal my identity, then i get in trouble because they might try to get you to a wreck. if the burden was placed on the retailer and they should have

never sold something to somebody and you want sure it was them, with this problem be solved better -- would this problem be solved better? guest: identity theft is something that has been around for a while. when the problem first -- people started to realize that this was becoming a real problem. law enforcement and private industry was not really sure how to handle it. and frankly, individuals took the brunt of that sort of crime. they still are. it is not something that anyone wants to do with. certainly, i think especially for people who may be poor or less financially capable of dealing with something like identity theft it can be a tremendous burden. but i do think that there has

been a shift. the onus is now on financial industry to try to deal with these things. even though there are problems there, they have improved. just like we talked about with the credit card companies and the banks, they are fairly sophisticated about spotting nefarious activity on accounts and shutting it down quite quickly. that is one of the chief reasons someone who would want to seal -- steel and identity would try to make a bunch of purchases in various places. they are certainly more heinous types of identity theft. there's also a robust market for social security numbers and social security numbers of children as well because those are often the social security numbers that people aren't checking. the other thing is that there

are mechanisms for consumers to be on the lookout for identity theft, checking credit reports regularly is probably one of the best ways. host: we have a few minutes left here with michael farrell. the previous caller brought up other countries trying to hack in to our government, calling it espionage. i want to show our viewers what defense secretary frank kendall have to say recently. here's what he had to say about cyber threats. [video clip] >> cyber security is a pervasive problem for the department. it is a persistent problem that is a danger and risk for programs from inception all the way to return. it includes the industrial base and supports their databases and information. it includes what we holding government. it includes logistics support information and the design information, the tactical information, everything associated with the policy is

potentially under attack. we are under attack and the cyber world. we have to do better at protecting. cyber security is one to be a major emphasis going forward and all of our managers need to be much more conscious and we need to be much more a tentative about best practices there is stabilizing the threat. host: what you make of what you heard there from the defense secretary? guest: i think he is right. any entity whether it is government or business or the financial sector that has critical information and critical processes for protecting on the web, other people are going to try to break into those systems. it is really critical that we do have more robust defenses to protect, especially the most sensitive and most critical data that is available and out there in the digital world.

as we move into that realm and where software and technologies used to protect our information and our processes in our power plants, for instance, there is a risk associated with that. cyber security is all about reducing that risk. host: given that, let's talk more about the private sector. cnn recently reported that there are more than 317 million pieces of new malware or viruses or other malicious software created last year. that means nearly one million threats were released today. it goes on to say that hackers relied on old computer bugs that companies have not gotten around to fixing it. guest: there's a tremendous amount of malware available. there are malware markets that criminals can go onto and purchase and use them and find out about them and figure out how to break into systems based on vulnerabilities that

companies haven't fix. -- fixed. if you think about the difficulty of fixing something like windows, so small businesses are using some old microsoft software, that is how they run the company and they have not updated their software and 10 years. then they are probably putting themselves at risk. the thing that i think with the cnn report -- those are big numbers there. they are salacious eye-popping. but a lot of this malware may not be any good either. a lot of people of gotten pretty good at detecting malware out there and defending against it. there are certainly some fairly sophisticated operations in malware out there. if you look at it, even though companies -- there's lots of cyber security companies selling

products for businesses to protect their networks. but even the best ones had a hard time protecting against what is known as "social engineering," which is somebody checking an employee to put on a bad link and that affects their system. that is the big issue to that it's a be dealt with. host: we will have to leave it there as the house is about to gavel in. they are taking up to cyber security bills today. thank you very much for your time. you can go to cs monitor.com for more from michael farrell. that doesn't it for today. thanks for watching. we will back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [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. 2014] the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lis smiedy the mori a mority leaders for morning hour debate. thehair w