>> would you support merrick garland the named question mark >> i support president obama and him having made the nomination and i think congress has an obligation to hold hearings on it. he deserves a vote? >> that is what i think. something i'm asked about in new mexico all the time is how did you get the new mexico vote that is 40 it percent hispanic? nothing. it's the same message regardless of the audience. >> there will be more questions in about 10 to 15 minutes. if anyone would like to get on the press bus give me your card.

[inaudible] >> later today, watch c-span's conversation with democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders from vermont. six: 30 p.m.t at and 9:30 p.m. et on c-span. >> our guest on newsmakers this week is the congressman from texas. he is the chairman of the financial services committee in the house of representatives. we heard testimony this week from janet yellen. the congressman has a major reform package for dodd frank in the wind. we will talk about that with him and more. with our two guests. donna and pete. as we get started, mr. chairman. yesterday the financial services

spending package was do to make its way to the house floor preempted by the democrats sit in on gun legislation. what is the next stop for that piece of legislation? >> i expect that to be up on one of the most available legislative days and includes provisions that are supported to make some of the washington --eaucracy more accountable putting the consumer financial protection bureau on budget. subject to the powers of purse from congress to make sure they have a bipartisan commission to set of one director. there are some good provisions in the bill and i expect it to be up in short order over the next few legislative days. >> as we are taping this program thursday morning, house democrats are still on the floor of the house of representatives. what is your view of the action they have been taking?

>> personally i think it is a little disturbing when i see members of congress holding up names or images of the deceased. i find it to be very unseemly. i think it is a huge disrespect to the american people and democracy. i used to see somebody democrats act in such an undemocratic fashion. just because barack obama became president and i did not support him, i would not counsel those trying to occupy his office and shut down business. this was an attempt by the democrats to shut down the government. we managed to get needed funding for the zika virus done, notwithstanding their particular protest. last, i find it ironic that they are calling for votes. they have had the votes. the senate voted down one of their provisions on the house side. there is a procedure, it is kind

of inside baseball but it is known as a motion to recommit. anyte they want to. it's the one vote the minority in the house is always guaranteed. at any time they could have brought up this provision. instead, i wish they would come together and work with us to make sure that we can more effectively conduct this war against terror. but so far they are just trying to change the subject. >> and peters rate are here. i want to talk to you a little of that the legislation you rolled up a couple of weeks ago. the financial choice act. this is a broad bill overhauling how wall street is regular did bite washington. dodd frank was enacted nearly six years ago now i wonder why now is the time you think there are to be an alternative put forward.

>> it is increasingly evident that dodd frank broke its promises. it did not live up to its billing. consumers are figuring out that the economy has not improved. supporters of dodd frank told us it would lift the economy and it hasn't. and we have the single, weakest, most tepid recovery we have had in the history of america. the economy is not working for working americans. your of entrepreneurship at a generational low and much of that has to do with the sheer weight, volume complexity cost and uncertainty of the dodd frank bill on the capital market. you cannot have capitalism without capital and i think the timing is good to go to the american people and say, we tried the democrat way. doddied this thing called frank it is the economy working for you?

most americans will say no. second of all, it is important to tell the american people what your plans are. speaker ryan has challenged republicans not just to be a party of opposition but proposition. to tell the american people that if you would trust republicans with the governance of the nation here is the bill we would have ended a simple. economic growth for all and bake -- bank bailouts for none. most people do not realize it didn't and so the big to fail it codified into law. i think the time is ripe to go to the american people. they are very suspicious of washington. they do not want wall street bailouts so we have a piece of legislation they can embrace that will give them hope and choice and help grow the economy. >> to put a finer point on pete 's question. when i talk to wall street bankers and executives on this question of why now, summary of the banks has spent millions of

dollars already and hired thousands of people in order to implement things to deal with city designations and so forth. point, having this alternative path after they have spent billions of dollars, what is the incentive for them to move to the alternate path you are proposing? >> i didn't necessarily write it for wall street but i know we are losing a community financial institution on main street and they are not dying of natural causes. we are losing credit unions and community banks. some of our key funding sources. timingu ask about the them a they are crying out for this particular piece of legislation. with respect to those who have had to invest lots of money into compliance for dodd frank, i understand that. a competitiveit advantage which is not good for our economy or working people

but some of the heads of the largest wall street banks have said this is a competitive advantage because we are the only ones who can afford to deal with the mindnumbing complexity. the last point i would make is the financial choice act is just that, it is choice. we are not forcing banks into a new system. if they want to stay with the current regulatory load where washington comes in and tells them how to run their bank and where politicians and bureaucrats will allocate credit, they can stick with that system. my guess is the shareholders will say, there is a better system. will put private capital -- we will put private capital in front of taxpayer capital. -- trump has

indicated he will put forward a plan that he described as dismantling dodd frank. i'm curious how your conversation with him went and should we expect an alternative approach or should we look to your bill as a framework for republicans going forward? >> i don't speak for the man in a did not -- i did have an occasion to meet with him. i can say that he received the briefing well. i wanted him to understand that house republicans have worked on an alternative plan to ensure that washington and wall street are held accountable, that we increase a trade-off between a lot more private capital for a lot less federal control and again, it didn't ask him to endorse the plan but i think he was pleased with what he heard and should he be elected president i think we have a lot to work on together in creating greater economic opportunity for

working americans which means you do have to dismantle dodd frank. it is one of the greatest burdens on the economy today. if we would have fundamental tax reform and allow there to be economic growth for all and bank bailouts for none, this economy would take off. no doubt about it. of the points that was asked repeatedly at janet yellen's hearing was this idea on the supplemental coverage ratio. that this relief plan is directed to those midsize and smaller community banks which even if democrats agree, those institutions should see relief and a janet yellen it is and i did to semper fi the capital rules for these institutions. how much effort have you put forth and tried to reach bipartisan support on your bell

and this issue and why not do it as a standalone? factm very proud of the that as chairman we have managed to get 40 different bipartisan bills out of our committee signed into law. we probably do more bipartisan work than just about any other committee in the united states house. but having said that, democrats tend to have a religious to dodd-frank. they view it as something that came down from mt. sinai inscreebd in tone tab let's. and so it's very difficult to work with them. behind closed doors they will tell you they know it's hurting credit opportunities for working americans. but it seems to be kind of a political brand protection. you've got people like elizabeth warren on the senate side who has elevated this to some kind of liberal cause to celebrate and don't let the facts get in the way. does it matter how many working people are hurt? does it matter how many credit opportunities are denied?

unfortunately, i haven't seen a lot of opportunity to work with them on this. so in this particular case their bark for reform is louder than their bite. they are not putting their votes whether males are. so i do not know what the next congress holds. if there are opportunities to work on a simple tried ratio between high levels of private capital in exchange for great levels of economic freedom i would be glad to work with any democrat at any time. so far there is not a line around the hallway to do that. >> chairman, you are here in a day with chairwoman yellen. one of the ideas she got from democrats was the idea of insufficient diversity at the federal reserve. >> the not agree more. there is an insufficiency of

diversity. every fed governor has been appointed by barack obama. there is no diverse opinion at all. because of that the federal reserve has become a highly partisan institution. it has lost a lot of independence. it is lost a lot of credibility. and so many ways, the independence of the fed has been compromised. it's a partisan cetacean. >> the campaign coming from democrats is on ethic diversity and gender diversity etc.. >> i think i want to live in a society that believes in equality of opportunity. i want to raise my children to appreciate people for the content of their character and not the color of their skin. the question is, where does the lack of diversity come from.

is it the presence of discrimination or the absence of discrimination? but the power of the federal reserve is the diversity of economic opinion that is not represented when the fed is morphed into another obama bureaucracy. >> wanted to hone in on the mechanics of the bill in terms of the offramp. on the 10% supplemental ratio, can you talk about your thinking in terms of how you arrived at 0% and why 10%? you mentioned the chairman of the sec, tom honig, how much did his views influence the proposal? >> i have yet to find a single bank that anyone has heard of that failed in 2008 the second worst economic crisis in america's history.

i've yet to find another bank that anyone has heard of that failed at a 10% leverage ratio. , butaying it's impossible it is being prepared for a 200 year flood. we do think it is important to avoid the mistakes of the past. too often what we see with a risk-based leverage ratio is set the legislators have got this completely wrong. there were not only complacent and what happened but they help caused the financial crisis by a choir and little to no capital to be reserved against sovereign debt and mortgage-backed securities. everybody piles into these risk-weighted assets. to the public, they were adequately capitalized on a risk basis ratio. but they weren't. that's why it's important to

have the simple leverage ratio to complacent -- replace complexity with simplicity. theset saying any of people have backed our bill but it is clear that tom honig at has a similar idea. alan greenspan has written on this as well. federal fed governor and a number of prominent economists. a number of nobel laureates have endorsed our approach. i think there is a growing consensus that there needs to be inew regulatory paradigm banking and capital markets and it also runs having high levels of private capital to absorb losses so we don't have systemic events, so we minimize the opportunities for financial panic. i'm not going to have enough arrogance or hubris to say if this bill would pass there would never be another financial

incident in america but i think they would be a lot less severe and certainly less frequent if we had high levels of private capital. >> howdy respond? chairwoman yellen was asked this question and explain that leverage ratio is a backstop to the capital measure you have a debate happening now overseas with the committee in terms of reorienting a slew of capital rules in order to remove that variability so that things are on the same level playing field get the banks are pushing back because -- a levele banks were on playing field we wouldn't be losing a community bank per day in america. that would be my first point. my second point is with all due respect to these people they got it and testicle he wrong. they help caused the financial crisis by getting financial

institutions to crowd into things like risky subprime to mortgage and to sovereign debt places like greece and spain. these are the people who got it fantastically wrong. it is a volume of mindnumbing complexity under the risk-based capital rules. i think you can make a case that the levels of capital were insufficient but you cannot make the case that they were insufficiently complex. they don't work. we have seen it. why would we want to repeat that? we don't. that is why we propose the financial choice act. >> some of the ideas in your bill are not new ones for republicans, for example the language running the cfp be. these are ideas the republicans have been putting forward for years and have got no momentum from democrats and the white house or in congress. you mentioned earlier that there

is a religious fealty among democrats to not touching. frank. i'm curious what the path forward for financial regulation looks like. does it require strong majorities in both chambers for anything to get done? >> the are some democrats behind closed doors who believe that it makes sense to have a regulatory commission that there is too much power for one individual. whoe are some democrats believe that one individual in america should not be the ultimate decision-maker on whether or not working family gets a credit card or gets a mortgage or an auto loan. we will have to see what happens after the next election. my crystal ball is fuzzy. i don't know who will win but if donald trump's president, he understands this is impeding economic growth. he would like to ensure the economy works for working americans. i'm afraid hillary clinton just

double down and take. frank to an even worse place so that would be harmful to working americans but we will have to wait and see after the election. i just want to get the idea out there and put it into the public realm, to have it debated and let the american people know that we have a better idea. we have a better way forward that would allow greater economic growth and it would allow you to keep the banker that you want to keep. it would allow you to decide in a competitive and innovative free enterprise targets -- markets which auto loans and credit cards are best for you and that washington wouldn't control your finance. i think increasingly people are waking up to the fact that what obamacare is to family health care. frank is to finances. >> peaking of the upcoming election, how concerned are you about the house or the gop losing the majority?

>> i have lots of things to lose sleep over. i'm not losing a lot of sleep over that one. i think we have a lot of good candidates and i think under speaker paul ryan that we have put forward plans, a better way forward when it comes to economic growth and health care to tax reform and regulatory reform. think it is a bold agenda for our candidates to run on. i'm optimistic in that regard. ceased tryingnce to figure out what is going on in the presidential race. >> are you planning to go to cleveland? will you campaign with mr. trump? >> cleveland rocks and always way to see the rock 'n roll hall of fame. i intend on going. >> will you campaign for mr. trump? >> i have endorsed him. like some republicans. there are a number of things he has said that i disagree with. what i do agree with is the chairman of the house financial

services committee that the economy is not working and it has to work. it has to give greater economic opportunity for all which means getting rid of dodd frank. i'm very enthusiastic about that until we can't and will make it even more difficult to get an auto loan or a mortgage loan. more community banks will go out of business. more small businesses will fail so the contrast with respect to dodd frank, economic opportunity could not be more stark. >> sticking with the secretary want to get your reaction to the report that elizabeth warren was on hillary clinton's shortlist for vice presidential pick and is being vetted right now as a potential pick. >> my guess is that it is the longest shortlist on american history because this is about the 50th name that i have heard. i think i will let hillary clinton choose her own vice

presidential nominee. i am passionately indifferent as to who she chooses. >> on a different track, how much of the political debate is centered around pro-wall street or anti-wall street. you try to carve a middle path where you say your bill is aimed bill -- s of the --the new york times reports i'm trying to create economic opportunity for all. you cannot have economic opportunity without capital. reason is we have washington bureaucrats or unelected and unaccountable trying to allocate credit along political lines to their friends

and cronies. much an insider's came. marketsliticize capital in the way to do that is to hold both washington and wall street accountable. like most americans never wanted to occupy wall street just wanted to quit bailing it out. elizabeth warren supports the taxpaying bailout fund. she supports institutions is too big to fail so she can take it over to take away the fundamental economic freedoms of americans to choose their credit cards and auto loans and to even get a small business loan in the first place. i know she spent a number of years and her ivory tower at harward but i think she is too far removed from small business people who are really the ones who create the new jobs and make

america work. shifting gears slightly, one of the big stories is brexit. the u.k. will cast their vote on whether or not they should .emain on the eu are you concerned about the economic ramifications on the u.s. economy? >> it has not made the list of the things i have tossed and turned on at night. out why so many u.s. officials are trying to get involved in a matter dealing with the eu and great britain. i think that is a decision for the british people not for american people. i have my own private views about it but i believe at the end of the day it is not going to have a huge impact on the world economy. >> as we close, twice you have referred to the things that keep you awake at night. do we have a hit on the top one

or two that keep you awake? >> it has to do with a 14-year-old daughter and a 12 your oldest son. >> thank you for taking a break and giving us an opportunity to spend time with us. >> iq for having me. understand more of what we heard from the chairman, let's start with the political optics. this is the year when populist candidates for the presidency have a lot of residents. get at theying to optics of the bill where people do not read the fine print as being cast as pro-wall street. can you talk more about the pluses and minuses? >> anyone who has been following the political debate knows that wall street remains very unpopular since the crisis got bad. you can see senator bernie sanders and even donald trump taking that to the voters and

really hitting home with it. this broad bill does include a number of provisions aimed at relieving smaller banks. there are some provisions that larger banks would enjoy that they are mixed on it and at same time they want to put forward a meaty proposal. the entire thing that they are trying to do is put forward robust policy proposals. that's what they are trying to do with this bill. critics will immediately describe it as a wall street wishlist. if also the chairman and others to find nuance in there and sell it as something different. >> you suggested that large banks are concerned because of the hiring they have done. the billions that have invested in compliance. what about selling this is a bill that is oriented toward community banks and savings and loan? hear aboutrised to

the new york story that wall street executives are upset. i understand that it really seems like there is little access in terms of lobbying that the wall street banks were able to do on this bill. i find it interesting that it is swept up in this bigger anti-wall street bill and it almost and zip undermining different areas where the banks would like to get some relief because it is passed in this. >> in terms of the political reality, unless there are larger majorities in the senate and a republican president this and otheryan s -- paul ryan's planks what are the futures for them? what if they want to advance republican policy proposals they will need to republican in the white house. that is the thrust behind this

they're saying if you give us the republican we need and republicans in both chambers of the white house, we can move forward on these things. if hillary clinton is elected, it is hard to believe that a lot of these proposals she will grab with both hands and go running with it. our closing two minutes on janet yellen's testimony. how was it received among others on the committee and in the wall street financial market? >> once again, i think it was republicans grilling janet yellen as is to be expected. it is hard to say how wall street took her remarks. i think she has been effective in trying to establish that the fed is not on a preset course. they will look into the data when they think it is appropriate. they are afraid of dialing it up too quickly and having to dial down and exasperating the

situation. >> are their frustrations with her modest growth projections? >> if you listen to the lawmakers, some are upset that they are too optimistic. -- the fed has consistently had to scale back how much it will grow going forward. the fed has repeatedly said we are doing what we can for the economy we are moving forward and the economy continues to limp along in a way that has left people dissatisfied. >> which yellen is once again echoing her predecessor that fiscal policy is needed and we need a helping hand from congress which is not happened so far. the fed on its own is try to navigate and improve the economy . >> does history tell us at this point in a presidential cycle that until the outcome is known, the financial markets are going to be in a state of wait-and-see. >> absolutely.

wall street hates uncertainty. in this election has been uncertain so they are bracing themselves as much as anyone else's. >> if anybody were to predict that we would be here right now six months from ago that would be impressive. thank you for being on newsmakers this week. >> you think not only is this something i would love to do, but something that would be different from the books written on macarthur in the past that would allow us to reevaluate what his significance was, what his virtues were that made him one of the most adored and agitated figures in american

history, but also, what were his flaws and what were the things that made him in many ways unpleasant and hated by millions of people. institute, hudson senior fellow arthur herman takes a look at the life and career of douglas macarthur. >> macarthur saw the future more clearly than he saw the present. whether it was america's role in , the or the rise in china split between china and the soviet union which heaw fores, and also perhaps the fate of american domestic politics. 8:00 p.m. et on "q&a." >> c-span sent down for an hour-long interview with senator bernie sanders from vermont. he talks about hillary clinton

and donald trump,'s presidential campaign, and future plans for the progressive movement. in anator bernie sanders, webcast last week you said the political revolution must continue into the future. what will that look like? it will look like millions of more people becoming involved in the political process. we had a very dormant system andnated by few people big-money interests. the goal from day one was revolutionize american democracy. people who have never been involved to jump back in an d say, this is our country and we want to have a say in the future. it shouldn't be the billionaires and koch brothers. two, i think you'll see a lot of new people running for office.

for state assembly and city council. we need to get people running opposite every level of government. what happens at the community level is extremely important. what we have seen in the fight for $15 an hour minimum wage. you and i chatting here five years ago, we would not have thought that would be possible. it happened because of grassroots activism. the climate change and the need to stop fracking. we are seeing results all of the country's people have been fighting on issue after issue. >> we want to focus on some of those issues and the campaign. but let's go back to where your candidacy began. i want to show you about your