there are areas that caused the crisis in areas they were required to hit by the dodd frank law. now they are working their way down to some of the other areas. and also trying to fend off toempts from congress constrict the funding. thank you very much for being on "newsmakers." ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] president obama speech from friday proposing changes to the nsa government surveillance program. then mike leigh, al franken, and ted cruz discuss the program during a hearing. then chris christie state of the state address. he testifies on implementing the federal health care law. >> 300 years ago, the first pioneers crossed the oceans to a new world. a promise of a land will be located built his own house, raise the children in peace. yet in one of the great river valleys, something went wrong. three centuries later, the descendents of the pioneers were a neglected people living in a real and land. hope and the promise were dead for these children. this is one of the early projects. it was

the., it is -- the dodd frank law, it is out of control. we should do it with the principal that we want to be competitive. we want to the best system, the most competitive in the country, and we want to do it without sending thousands of things where you are throwing sunday the way government agency so businesses do not know what is legal and what is not. outdated?96 law should it go away? should it be replaced? >> we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question. getis it that broadcasters slab?pectrum in a huge thats it they have a law says the cable company must carry their signal. they can require them to pay them if they don't want it. we have a world where broadcasters competing with satellite. and increasingly, citizens are choosing to get information not from broadcast, but from other sources. why do we have laws which favor one medium over another? the principle should be competition. they should be on different media, non-favorite media that has lived off lobbying. privacy. the issues is the nsa taking data. a lot of your member c

you see obamacare and the dodd-frank law that is out of control. we should do it with the principle we want to be competitive and have the best system in the world. and do it without sending thousands of pages of unclear things where you are throwing things out that business don't know if is legal or not. >> should the '96 law be replaced? 1934 communication law is used in some ways. >> we should be asking they broadcasters are getting free spectrum? why do they have a law that says cable company must carry their signal? we have a world where you have broadcast competing with satellite and internet and increasingly citizens are choosing to get the information from totally other sources. and why do we have laws that favor one medium over the other? competition, fairness and if the government is imposing law they should be minimal and on different media. >> one of the issues that has been discussed is the issue of privacy. the nsa taking data. what has the cea said about privacy? >> it is dear to us because we are americans and it hurts us to know th

there are areas that caused the crisis in areas they were required to hit by the dodd frank law. now they are working their way down to some of the other areas. and also trying to fend off attempts from congress to constrict the funding. >> thank you very much for being on "newsmakers." ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next washington journal reid wilson looks at that wendy 14 agenda for legislators. after that jayne o'donnell talks about the affordability of plans of the health care law federal exchanges than discussion of a plan designed to provide heating assistance to households. mark wolf joins us. we will also take your comments by phone, twitter, and facebook. and tomorrow a discussion about politics with steve phillips. supports democratic candidates. he spoke at the city club in cleveland. here is a preview of his remarks. >> 64% of the population is white. of that 41% are progressive. that means the progressive part is 26%. you add that to the 29% who are youle of color, it gives

obamacare, dodd-frank and other laws and regulations still creating a lot of uncertainty. our challenge now is to keep and expand the growth we have finally ae chiefed to create millions of jobs we still badly need and to extend those benefits and opportunities of the recovery to all americans. and, you know, the issue is how do you do this? first, by passing trade promotion authority and then moving forward on the free trade agreements that we have underway. second by accelerating the energy revolution with millions and millions of americans to work. and it's bringing manufacturing back to the u.s. and if you ask me some questions about that, we have a lot of things to tell you. and the passage of common sense immigration reform will clearly add jobs. it won't at all take away jobs. it'll provide a lot of innovation and investment. monetizing the regulatory system and informing government process, that's an ongoing issue, but i think we can make some progress there. and getting our fiscal house in order is absolutely critical to us. by the way, you heard me talk about all

you see 2,000-page laws like obamacare and the dodd-frank law, it's out of control. and it's hurting business. so if we want to look at whether there's too much regulation in the fcc, absolutely, we should. but we should do it with the principle that we want to be competitive, we want to have the best system, the most competitive system in the country -- in the world. and we want to do it without, basically, sending thousands and thousands of pages of unclear things where you're throwing something to a government agency so businesses don't know what is legal and is what is not. >> host: so that said, is the '96 law outdated, outmoded, should it go away? should it be replaced? 1934 communications law, we still operate under some aspects of that as well. >> guest: i think we have to ask yourselves some fundamental questions. we should be asking ourselves why is it that broadcasters get free spectrum in a huge swath that fewer than 10% of the population is relying on? why is it that broadcasters have a law that says a cable company must carry their signal? and not only

obamacare, dodd-frank and other laws and regulations still creating a lot of uncertainty. our challenge now is to keep and expand the growth we have finally ae chiefed to create millions of jobs we still badly need and to extend those benefits and opportunities of the recovery to all americans. and, you know, the issue is how do you do this? first, by passing trade promotion authority and then moving forward on the free trade agreements that we have underway. second by accelerating the energy revolution with millions and millions of americans to work. and it's bringing manufacturing back to the u.s. and if you ask me some questions about that, we have a lot of things to tell you. and the passage of common sense immigration reform will clearly add jobs. it won't at all take away jobs. it'll provide a lot of innovation and investment. monetizing the regulatory system and informing government process, that's an ongoing issue, but i think we can make some progress there. and getting our fiscal house in order is absolutely critical to us. by the way, you heard me talk about all

appeals heard an oral argument last week on debit card sweep fees charged to retailers under the dodd-frank law they can place a cap on swipe fees. the fees were set at 44 cents by card networks before the law, and reduced to 21 cents by the federal reserve in 2011. this is an hour. >> thank you, your honor. this case involves the straight forward issue and the fees allowable for interchange are unequivocally foreclosed by section 920 of the electronic fund transfer act. if not whether the board's policy decisions reflect a permissible interpretation of the statute. let me first talk about network exclusivity and routing. debit cards operate over two main meths signature in which you sign the slip or pen based on the atm. signature is based on credit card infrastructure. because of the historical root it's easier for cards to be enabled with different pin numbers but not -- >> we -- [inaudible] we understand the networks work. why don't you focus on -- >> so before our rule was effective, the network had exclusivity clauses in the agreement that prevented merchants or issuers from having multip

the dodd-frank laws are still waiting to be to implemented, and builders are really in jeopardy right today and said affordability is a major issue, affordability across the board. if you look at one percentage point on interest rates, that's a 10% jump in the price of that home. that's why interest rates are so tightly correlated. but do you think that's going to be the same issue for the wilders as well -- builders as well, especially be they're targeting that younger demographic? >> it's affordability because of the underwriting standards to get a mortgage. the credit squeeze is on in such a big way as a result of the housing bust that people just are having a much harder time getting mortgages than ever before. cheryl: let me ask you about, you know, existing home sales had been jumping since 2011, september. so we've had two years of strong growth. now existing sales have finally flattened out. does that mean all that inventory is cleared out? >> we see there's a lot less inventory of of existing homes, and it's going to be problematic going forward -- cheryl: but prices will ris

habitat opposes neither the qualified mortgage standard specifically nor the dodd-frank law more generally. habitat is seeking legislative relief only after having exhausted all other options. the cost of compliance with the new mortgage regulations has been significant. as the largest affiliate in north carolina, we are the only one to employ a licensed mortgage originator in the state. she has spent most of the last year becoming trained on the new standards, auditing our processes to ensure compliance, and organizing our staff to prepare for implementation this january. jill further works to guide other habitat affiliates through seminars and meetings, and has devoted well over 1,000 hours to this process. this is only on the origination side of the process. we have expended equal, if not greater, effort preparing for the requirements of the servicing component of these new regulations. i can assure you that the compliance costs for most affiliates has been high, and every dollar spent on compliance is one that is not spent meeting local housing needs. habitat affiliates have worked har

laws as they go along. a perfect example is obama care and the dodd/frank act. they have no idea what's in this law. they're making it up as they go along. we've become a nation not of laws -- >> it isn't free. >> quick thought to jamoot, when you live in new jersey and don't like what's going on you can move to new york, connecticut or somewhere else. when it's a federal law you can't move. it's yr country. >> well, i think as we're seeing with marijuana law, the states are taking control and this will go across i think all of the states. now, there has to be that balance. that's the federal government provides and we saw that in the civil rights movement when states do bad things, the federal government does need to check them. >> last thought couple seconds. >> what i was going to say was that look, this is a bad thing. we shodn't have more regulations. this costs money. this costs businesses a trillion dollars a year having to comply with all these regulations. >> we have to leave it there and say thank you to jamoot for joining us this week. get ready to have fun. we show you the funniest momen

all the more important, considering that the fed gained even greater power under the dodd-frank financial regulation law, despite the fact that the federal reserve's own failures contributed to the need for financial reform in the first place. madam president, in light of dr. yellen's weak touch as a bank regulator and her strong inclination to print more and more money, i firmly opposed her nomination. only time will tell, but i believe that a vote in the affirmative is one that many of my colleagues will come to regret. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: if i may presume that we are in a quorum call and request that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. wouldmr. whitehouse: thank you y much. madam president, i'm back again today now for the 54th time to urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to earth'

changes you wanted some to the dodd frank law on the regulatory side. could you elaborate on what specific parts are not workable in what might be changed? >> i think there is a little history here. legislation was written in a hurry. it was written by people who were mad. it was written by people who did not want to have responsibilities for what happened. forave been act is now almost three years. we made great success in negotiations with the sec and the other agencies. we have had great success in the courts. a real concern is that more than half of those rules have not been done. we are trying to do is bring common sense to this. onhave all of the issues corporate governance. we are working on those. we have it all of the issues on the requirement on the financial institutions, and now we are in a difficult area where we are looking at insurance companies and other investment groups and some of these regulators are being treated like they when they don't do any of the things that banks do. gotten fogelman now, remember what happens. the agencies co

law like obamacare. they're constantly amending the constitution and amending statutes. congress passed obamacare, dodd-frank, these are blatantly unconstitutional laws that confer power on the administrative state and do other things that are outrageous. so the notion that three-fifths of the state legislatures should be able to amend the constitution should hardly be radical when the supreme court is, in essence, a constitutional convention every time it meets, same with congress, same with the president and his cabinet. in order for that to happen, we'd have to amend the constitution in the first place to allow the states to do that, which is one of the things i propose in my book. >> host: in your fist book, "men in black," you write: the supreme court in particular now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding the constitutional limitations, the legitimate roles of congress and the president and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people. >> guest: yeah. the progressives have won. and i don't know why they're complaining or challenging what i'm writing, you

dodd-frank. dodd-frank, as you can imagine, was written by, in large part, under the gyppeddance and directions of individuals that worked for senator dodd and congressman barney frank. when the bill became law this highly complex bill nat nobody seemingly can understand, those staff members quit their jobs and they went into private business, charging large wall street firms and charging large banks, charging them enormous fees to interpret the bill they had written. think about that for a second. a little bit like saying i'm going write a bill in an ancient lange, we're going to make it law, and then i'm going to serve as a translator. in other words you have to pay me so you can figure out how to conform with this law. that's really what is taking place and that's a form of extortion. lots of companies and individuals want to comply with the law. a lot of times they can't figure out how to comply with the law, without paying a consultant, and guess what, it's designed to operate that way. perhaps the most troubling part of extortion, though, that i've come across is what has happened in the executive branch, particularly over the last four years. something unprecedented has happened in th

obamacare, dodd-frank and other laws and regulations still creating a lot of uncertainty. our challenge now is to keep and expand the growth we have finally ae chiefed to create millions of jobs we still badly need and to extend those benefits and opportunities of the recovery to all americans. and, you know, the issue is how do you do this?

>> it was drafted into law in the frank dodd legislation. part is when they drafted the legislation and set this up, they limited congress' oversight ability with this. so unlike the irs situation, and unlike the national security agency situation, this group is largely completely impervious to congressional probing by the law that congress itself when the democrats controlled it, designed. >> who does the consumer financial protection bureau report to the department of the treasury? >> oh if only. they're part of the federal reserve, which is largely unaccountable. congress -- no one has a lot of oversight over this board. >> so they literally report to the treasury, which by definition is supposed to be a separate entity, right? >> to a degree, and the way the dodd-frank wrote it, this board is largely separate from everyone. the board elizabeth warren wag in charge of. the republicans refused her nomination. there should be deep worries among the american public about the data they're grabbing because it does paint a picture not just of a

law like obamacare. they're constantly amending the constitution and amending statutes. congress passed obamacare, dodd-frank, these are blatantly unconstitutional laws that confer power on the administrative state and do other things that are outrageous. so the notion that three-fifths of the state legislatures should be able to amend the constitution should hardly be radical when the supreme court is, in essence, a constitutional convention every time it meets, same with congress, same with the president and his cabinet. in order for that to happen, we'd have to amend the constitution in the first place to allow the states to do that, which is one of the things i propose in my book. >> host: in your fist book, "men in black," you write: the supreme court in particular now sits in final judgment of essentially all policy issues, disregarding the constitutional limitations, the legitimate roles of congress and the president and the broad authority conferred upon the states and the people. >> guest: yeah. the progressives have won. and i don't know why they're complaining or challenging what i'm writing, you

replacing some of the provisions of the dodd-frank bill that simply don't work as they were planned. while also pursuing regulations to act in areas that the law did not address. now we're also very concerned about the department of education's proposed gainful employment rule which discriminates against private sector colleges and universities. this is wrong and this is unfair. these institutions can play a major role in helping our nation close a serious skills gap. we're going to do everything we can to change or stop the rule as it is currently written. another serious regulatory challenge, which by the way, is very abusive, but i think it's absurd is the sue and settle process. with a wink and a nod, an interest group sues the epa. they agree on a settlement. they find a court to bless it. and even get to collect legal fees, courtesy of the american taxpayer, with no transparency and little opportunity for public input, new regulations are then imposed on business and our economy and those that proposed it walk away with a check. between 2009 and 2012, epa settled with interest groups at least 60 times, creating some hundred new regulatio

dodd frank statute. the other issue is the suspension of various provisions of the law.s lawyers say it is authorized by provisions or general authority of the executive branch to make decisions about what issues to pursue through enforcement actions called discretion. everybody agrees that the not have to use -- theyatute to the have discretion. let's give this one a pass. it is not important to devote the energy and well more important antiterrorist issues. everybody agrees there is that type of discretion. there is an argument that presidents do not have the power to exempt matters by category from enforcement. there is litigation going on now. it is very hard distinction between ordinary not to enforce a law and larger ones that the president has been engaged in. we will eventually weigh in on that issue. my view will become insignificant. host: cases moving through now. what your out about the new challenges to the affordable care act which would've been talking about a lot this morning? what are going to be the things to watch in the coming year? guest: the supreme

law. over the past to reconnect the number member of to meet the mandates of the dodd-frank act, which i understand will talk about today. this important role requires mortgage lenders to make a good-faith reasonable determination that are as can pay that their loans. at the back to basics approach to mortgage lending. enacted a mortgage servicing was assigned to clean up sloppy practices and ensure fair and more effective processes for troubled borrowers who may face the loss of homes. we talked a remittance rather provides transparency and consumer protection for money transfers for the very first time. the consumer has been closely focused on making sure businesses small and large have what they need from a practical operational standpoint to understand and comply with the new mortgage rules. without plain language versions of the rules created to be okay and i met with active players on a full range of industry stakeholders including vendors and smaller lenders. we worked with regulators lobby for the implementation phase though industry understands expectations and has necessary adjustments. w

dodd frank statute. the other issue is the suspension of various provisions of the law. in both of those instances, the say -- his actions lawyers say it is authorized by provisions or general authority of the executive branch to make decisions about what issues to pursue through enforcement actions called discretion. everybody agrees that the not have to use -- theyatute to the have discretion. let's give this one a pass. it is not important to devote the energy and well more important antiterrorist issues. everybody agrees there is that type of discretion. there is an argument that presidents do not have the power to exempt matters by category from enforcement. there is litigation going on now. it is very hard distinction between ordinary not to enforce a law and larger ones that the president has been engaged in. we will eventually weigh in on that issue. my view will become insignificant. host: cases moving through now. what your out about the new challenges to the affordable care act which would've been talking about a lot this morning? what are going to be the thin

dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. we have shortened that, thank goodness, but it was signed into law in july 2010. its purpose was to strengthen the regulatory environment and to protect consumers. as written, the rule includes and says provisions that lenders must make responsible, good faith determination that a mortgage is andrdable to the consumer, that's why it is commonly referred to as the ability to .epay rule it sounds simple, and you would not think it would have needed a law to tell lenders they should make a borrower be able to repay before they lend the money. when i was a lender, we called that banking 101. but it back to the crazy loans .ade back in 2004, 2005, 2006 you can see why such a rule may have been necessary. policy supporting this concept went back as far as 2004. to be a qualified mortgage and receive safe harbor protection, the loan must have relatively low points and fees and must follow a number of underwriting guidelines. they must not contain risky features such as interest-only payments or payments that are less than the full amount of so that the borrower's debt mi

the collapse of the market, three years after the passage of the wall street reform law we still can't say that dodd-frank, that legislation ended this problem. july of last year, chairman bernanke said i wouldn't be saying the truth if i said that the problem is gone. it's not gone. that's the chairman of the federal reserve. at her nomination hearing before the senate banking committee governor yellen, then the vice-chair now still the vice-chair of the federal reserve, said too big to fail is -- quote -- "among the most important goals -- ending too big to fail is -- quote -- among the most important goals in the post-crisis period." that's one of the many reasons i rise today to support and argue for janet yellen's confirmation as the chair of the federal reserve. today's complex financial system, it is more important than ever that we have strong regulators like governor yellen who can recognize emerging threats to economic stability and who isn't afraid to act when they find abuses that put american consumers and workers at risk. throughout her distinguished career at the fed more than a decade gove

dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. we have shortened that, thank goodness but it was signed into law in july of 2010. its purpose was to strengthen the regulatory environment and protect consumers. as written, the ruling kludge important provisions for consumers. it says lenders must make responsible, good faith determination that a mortgage is affordable to the consumer and that is why it is commonly referred to as the ability to repay rule. it sounds simple, and you wouldn't think we needed a lot to tell lenders they should make a borrower be able to repay before they lent the money. when i was a banker for some 15 years we called that banking 101. if you think back to the crazy loans that were made in 2004-5-6 you can see why such a rule might have been necessary. the policy supporting this concept went back as far as 2004. to be a qualified mortgage and receive safe harbor protection, the loan must have relatively low points and fees and following number of underwriting guidelines. they must not contain risky features such as interest only payments or payments that are less than the full amount o

replacing some of the provisions of the dodd-frank bill that simply don't work as they were planned. while also pursuing regulations to act in areas that the law did not address. now we're also very concerned about the department of education's proposed gainful employment rule which discriminates against private sector colleges and universities. this is wrong and this is unfair. these institutions can play a major role in helping our nation close a serious skills gap. we're going to do everything we can to change or stop the rule as it is currently written. another serious regulatory challenge, which by the way, is very abusive, but i think it's absurd is the sue and settle process. with a wink and a nod, an interest group sues the epa. they agree on a settlement. they find a court to bless it. and even get to collect legal fees, courtesy of the american taxpayer, with no transparency and little opportunity for public input, new regulations are then imposed on business and our economy and those that proposed it walk away with a check. between 2009 and 2012, epa settled with interest groups at least 60 times, creating some hundred new regulatio

law like obamacare. constantly amending the constitution and congress passed obamacare and dodd-frank and they have power on administrative state and three fifths of the state legislature should be able to directly amend the constitution in the supreme court is a constitutional convention in the same with the president and his cabinet. and then on order for that to happen we would have to allow the states to do that, which is one of the things i proposed in my book. >> in your first book you write that the supreme court, in particular, talked about the final judgment with all policy issues regarding the constitutional limitation in the legitimate roles of congress and the president and the broad authority in the states of the people the. >> i don't know why they are challenging what i am writing before woodrow wilson and they make clear what they are objectives. and they didn't like the ideas of checks and balances and sovereignty and they did everything that they could at the time to undermine him. so we have the supreme court now in the decision of anything and look at what happened with all of these i