tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 3, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EST
iran over the country's nuclear program. 5, scott patterson of the wall street journal on the volcker rule and how to implement it. ♪ the house is set to vote on a 10 year extension on a law next weekt to expire on detecting guns through metal detectors. president obama will address the nation with the status of health care.gov. and the washington post is reporting that the senate is confident they can pass the farm bill. washingtong to journal, december 3, 2013. you have heard about the amazon
the faaamazon store to is posted developer rules by 2015 on use of drones and commercial airspace. we want to get your thoughts on whether or not you would support or oppose drone use. here is how you can call in the -- a we that you choose the line the best record since you. if you want to weigh in on social media, three ways you can do so, you can send us a tweet. you can send something to our .acebook page and you can always send this e- mail -- send us e-mail, email@example.com. the faa is already in the process of developing
otherl read some reactions, especially on the privacy front. we want to ask your thoughts on the commercial use of drones and whether you would support or oppose it. if you support it, give us a call at -- you can post on our twitter page , post on our facebook page as well, and you can always send us an e-mail. participate on a whole, you could do so too. 12 respondents participating. most of them weighing in on the opposed category with one weighing in on the support category. respondents say it is job stealing, who is going to
be left to buy the junk from china when we have no jobs left? edward perkins says -- we will read a little bit about the privacy concerns. some legislators already waiting in. let's hear first up from joe from texas on our oppose line. good morning. caller: hello? host: you're on, go ahead. against drones0%
being used in the united states. host: even for commercial uses? caller: the only exception i have would be for forest fires or anything like that. as far as military and police, we don't need our skies filled observingying around the public. we need our security taking care of a different way. government is running amok. used forn if it is commercial purposes, you are concerned about concern -- you are concerned about security? one thing leads to another. they are going to take it all the way. host: that is joe from texas. we will hear next from dawn on pennsylvania -- from don in opposevania froon the line. guest:= [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] caller: this is just another way to get rid of jobs. all the the the court geniuses think it is wonderful. i am 61. when jobs are gone we are in trouble. host: you are confident there is a direct tie between having something like this and a loss of jobs on the delivery side? caller: yes. i am a retired postal worker. another way to get rid of jobs. host: i don't know if you saw read what goes through your mind as far as those that are like you? the first thing that went through my mind were the old jetsons cartoons, with everything flying in the air. i don't know. if you go to bill maki on
twitter, he says -- we are asking you about drones for commercial use, do you support or oppose it? tell us why. john is on our support line from kentucky. i completely support drones and all technology. being usedto see it for anything other than flying death machines. you can't stop technology, and technology can be used to benefit ma'am. i think this is a wonderful play. are going to have people
am being the drones paid their own high paid salaries. because down on pollution, cuts down on so many different things. i just don't see any downside to something like that. host: a previous color was a former postal worker and said that the person who would normally be delivering would no longer have a job. but you are still going to have people that are going to be producing -- manufacturing the drones. you are going to have people selling the drones. people operating the drones, there are a whole lot more people getting jobs. it may not be a one-to-one trade-off. the industry association
that has been the unmanned aircraft did a study on the economic benefits these types of commercial uses could produce. it says -- that is by the association behind these types of aircraft. they estimated those figures earlier this year. it could create 70,000 new jobs, including 34,000 manufacturing positions, in the first three years, the group forecast. in 10 years, it projects 100,000 jobs will be added. elizabeth is up next from nebraska on our oppose line. good morning. caller: i think drones are dangerous to the general public.
going to eliminate a whole lot of jobs from the ups and federal express, the postal service. what theyu never know are going to drop on your and spying on the privacy of your personal life is not necessary in the united states of america. a cuts our freedom away from us. -- it cuts our freedom away from us. danger,u spoke to the what do you mean by that? know whatu never those packages will contain, do you? senator released a statement on this topic on monday, it was a response to the "60 minutes" story.
that is a statement released to the amazon story. ohio on from columbus, our support line. why do you supported to? -- why do you support it? it is good if you can make it all electric. i agree with the last couple about privacy and security. if you make the electric, you can make it -- you can get past the security issues. host: why specifically with
electric? is a pollution and a can cause more damage if it crashes. pleasantville, new jersey, oppose line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. said, theye he just .ay and could boost the economy so i agree. but at the same time it is not for sure that this is what they are going to do. promises, promises. what they're going to do, what they could do, how but given the -- they try to schedule trips to out-of-state.
thinking about a drones system that would deliver packages of a certain weight in about 30 minutes. you saw video of that, which sparked some of the reaction, even to the point of legislators. we want to get your thoughts on commercial uses of drones in the united states, if you would support or oppose that. on your screen. lauren is on our for those that supported. how are you? are you there from new york? caller: hi. i think the technology is awesome. i lived in silicon valley and watched all the changes. as what we can do with it, it is great. is seeing how technological companies and the nsa are doing their own thing outside of what our privacy rights are, he gets really scary
when those drones are going to be equipped with cameras and the nsa can tap into those cameras. i would be my concern. it is purely on the privacy front you have concerns about this? caller: not exactly. looking at this logistically, a livery by drones is not much better than leaving a package on the doorstep, which is not there he secure. -- not veryatch secure. i can just watch for the drones are going. who controls the airspace over my house? maybe i don't want a drone flying over my house. the technology is awesome, i think it's great. my one concern is what is the nsa getting into with these companies? are we on the road to fascism? somebody pointed out on
here is dan from wilbert in oklahoma on the support line. -- wilbert 10, oklahoma on the support line. polls -- ihink it think it puts a whole new meaning to the word "skeet shooting." being wellgine them enough maintained to accurately get a package to the right front porch. danny is up next from louisiana on the oppose line. go ahead, louisiana. caller: yes.
i oppose it because i think it is just a danger. weare a type of country -- make something. it always ends up being used for something else. do it iare going to think they need to try and one small area to see how it operates before it goes nationwide into the united states of america. just work it out in a certain area and see how it does. if it doesn't we won't have to worry about waste. we always worry how to save, how we are going to do this, how are you are going to do that. you are always going to have glitches in the system. i am just really opposed.
we have enough stuff going on. we can look at the other countries today that try stuff like this and do stuff. it is too much danger. law enforcement and security is already scarce. even have enough security for the things we got going on now. i think it is going to cause a bunch of more trouble. does approvefaa these rules, you say there should be a test location before widespread commercial airspace allowances been given. caller: that is exactly right. you may have too many crashes, computer glitches, it may send them to one direction. all kinds of crazy stuff. one caller says you never know what somebody -- one somebody may -- what somebody may try to use it for.
have all these small terrace things going on in new york and other places. i think the faa needs to beef up security before they try to do -- before they try to introduce anything to the american citizens. they are not even providing proper security with the things that are already over. on our facebook page, a poll you can participate in. most people weighing in and opposing the commercial use of drones. one response from richard smith this morning saying -- one of the ways you can respond this morning, twitter being a nether way.
alan on our support line from illinois. i oppose it for deliveries. a tremendous help for firefighting, particularly in high-rise clings. to sum it up i would say i supported for military and firefighting purposes only. host: why not commercial and delivery purposes? [indiscernible] michael from cincinnati, ohio on the oppose line. caller: yes, hello? host: you're on, go ahead.
you're going to have to excuse me, i'm one of the people who do not believe in you scans. it is a job loss situation. too many people are trying to get work and a lot of delivery workers stand to lose their jobs. yes they may help out for firefighting like a gentleman before me said, that may be a good idea, or military application. move the movie skids to the movies. this is real life. we need jobs, not toys to do our jobs for us. the association that represents the industry says jobs can make by the use of technology. thatr: creating one job you work two hours a day versus a 40 hour a week job for another gentleman delivering something. that does not make any sense to
me. it just doesn't. they using machines to make .ther machines we've been down that road. host: that was michael and ohio. some of thet commercial prospects of these unmanned vehicles, highlighting a couple of them. another company in peru is using drones to map archaeological sites and protect them from vandals and squatters. another thing they highlight is sho,panese toy maker kiyo which displays led messages.
these are the commercial uses they highlight, industries developing these technologies. your thoughts on the overall commercial use of air drones in the united states, what the faa should do or maybe other federal arms of the government. you can give us a call -- the senate says a hearing is coming up on the commercial use of drones in the united states, saying it is the transportation and science committee --
as we move forward towards integrating drones into civilian life and capitalizing on the economic opportunities they offer, we must make certain that these aircraft's meet rigorous safety and privacy standards. the commerce committee said the hearing was already in the works before the amazon announcement on sunday. her knees from hartsdale, new -- bernice from hartsdale, new york on our support line. favor of using the drones because i just enrolled in a prescription d plan on medicare. i will get the best price if i use mail order to obtain my drugs.
i take 14 prescription drugs. it is very difficult to keep things in order. in order to get the prescription i haveelivered on time, to call two weeks ahead of time. it seems insurmountable. however, if i saw that i was running out of drugs and they could be delivered in a half hour, it would be most helpful. i think for old ladies on prescription d, it might be a help. host: that is bernice from new york. this,ve probably heard
but -- dylan from alabama, you are up next. we are asking about the commercial use of drones if you support or oppose it. he calls in on our oppose line. i just believe that is a huge waste of money. there are other things that can be done out here with that kind of money. you need to build centers closed off for amazon to send things. at five pound package from five minutes away. waste of money. you have people out here that
don't even have skills enough to work a job that is out here mao. and now you want to create more hot tech jobs on top of that to take away jobs from delivery people that i have him make a money and taking care of a family. -- that are out here making money in taking care of their family. domestically.pent homes aroundot of in my neighborhood that are in a rut. spent bettern be than making little toys to deliver things out to rural areas. half of that money can be spent organizing these areas and putting highways and byways for people to get out there come instead of having all of these sections of the country that are living still in the 50s.
that money can be spent better to mystically. host: a couple other stories for you. here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] announced anago i additional $35 million for the aids drug assistance program, which helped people pay for life-saving medications. at one time the need was so great that over 9000 people were on the waitlist. we vowed to get those numbers down and i am proud to announce that, as of last week, we have cleared that waitlist. we are down to zero. [applause] so we are making progress.
because wehere today all know how much work remains to be done. focusing oneep investments in communities that are being hit hardest, including bisexual men, african americans, and latinos. we need to fight to keep up our cities, like washington d.c., which is reduced thy most infections nearly by half. we are going to keep pursuing scientific breakthroughs. we are going to redirect $100 million into this project to develop a new generation of therapies. the united states should be at the forefront of new discoveries . or better yet, eliminate it completely. host: the end of the senate and
mike from virginia, thank you for holding on on our oppose line. you are on, sir. go ahead. oppose the drone delivery. , the corporation is ultimately responsible to its shareholders. they are clearly trying to save money. unfortunately, that wealth will to the folksbuted that work for the company. they cut folks and people women, with these sorts of ways to cut costs. i appreciate it is a nice technological advance. the only thing it serves are the
shareholders of the companies. mean peopleat would that own the stock would become more wealthy. jobs, the sequester we continue to see is killing approximately 2 million jobs in the country. i would suggest we look at sequester and what it is doing to the country. i will leave it at that. the 2014 elections are a highlight of "the wall street journal" this morning.
summary foreclosures and empty homes. we just had to merge schools and you have money for drones? i don't understand things like that. i don't understand how they have closed so many mental facilities here. we have these people walking in our neighborhood and we are afraid. we have so many people out of work and this would just take more jobs from our countrymen. i don't agree, i don't understand it, and i don't understand how -- no one has even heard of this. i am very concerned. in "the wall street journal close quote there is a story about the changes in the inner circle of president obama. several allies of the white house,
for our country to move forward in the technology world, we need to challenge ourselves. back in the 50s the space shuttle was not even thought of but that is where the ideas came from. have goto use what we to move forward. everybody is going on complaining about how that money can be used to prove summary different things. host: someone mentioned privacy being wanted, airspace being another. there is always going to be some sort of issue. it doesn't matter what it is. if we don't move forward and
this is luke from virginia on our support line. i completely support it and i like the way technology is going. we need to assume that computers have some government use and private use. we need to take into consideration that these new drones are going to go from commercial used to private use where the lawmaker in texas created the plaques is -- the plastic gun.
it is something i agree. >> a progress report on the detroit bankruptcy is expected today. it says a federal judge is scheduling ruling today on bankruptcy relief. we set the stage for an orderly resolution. predict u.s. bankruptcy judge will rule the choices eligible for bankruptcy protection and let the city proposing plan to restructure its debt. if rose decides to kick the city -- thebankruptcy court, 500 claimants are among the
nearly 100,000 creditors that are owed $18 billion. howard, good morning on our oppose line. i feel that somebody may get a hold of the controls and may use it for other purposes, like delivering a package with a bomb. if you have seen some futuristic movies, they are either spying on you. even in england they have cameras all over the place. there are summary things that can go on right now. host: a lot of people are responding to the poll on our facebook page. you can continue the conversation on our facebook
page and also participate in that poll as well. one more call, this is glenn. i worked overseas in a third world country for years in the oil field. the government would not let us use that technology in this country. they do not allow us to bring the technology and. we have the corporations making money, making billions of dollars. that is my comment. host: you think of drones are used jobs will be lost. that is your line of thinking? yes.r:
host: that is the last call we will take on this topic. have two we will legislators join us during the course of the program. tim he'sll hear from camp, the republican from kansas. elskamp, thehu republican from kansas. later will be gregory meeks from new york. we will take up the discussion when the "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> so i did not get the idea for
the series, i had an idea to do a beginning book about computers, about dos, and i kind of inspired myself to do that, just healing with people in a magazine job i had, being on the radio at that time, and being out in the public and talking to people about computers. it was obvious people wanted to learn more. but the material we had available at the times was not -- was note job doing the job. .e had computer books there are condescending, patronizing, the author was eric and. s arrogant. people wanted to use a computer. i originally planned on publishing one book. even then there was some reluctance he with the title. said, you cannot offend the
reader, cancel that book. offunately 5000 copies came the press. original data lives could be that originally it was going to be 7500. they stopped at 5000 and thought they would shove this on the marketplace and it will go away. at the time, not all the bookstores even wanted to have it. waldenbooks said they did not want to insult the reader. there,th 5000 copies out this was before the internet and before we had bookstores, real bookstores people went into, they came in and it was gone. in a week it was sold out. people wanted it. they sought and said, that is for me. i am a dummy. i want that book and >> today there are more than 250 million books in print and more than 1800 "for dummy" titles out there. we look at the history and
literary life of coeur d'alene, idaho. our first guest is representative tim huelskamp . good morning. can i take you back to a couple of stories in which you are quoted with on the affordable care act? this is from november 8 -- do you still believe that? guest: that is accurate. holiday season, a lot of folks are not interested in what is going on with washington.
we made a proposal, we will see what happens. we will go after that medicaid funding in obamacare. tell me what you are looking for. guest: we are looking for $20 billion in advance medicaid funding. that is the amount of cuts to the defense budget for the sequester. it is just initial discussions. at the end of the day obama care is not working well. the website will eventually get up and running at the end of the day. those kind of problems will continue no matter what happens on the budget discussion. our other republicans of your mindset or with many of them tried to do what we saw a few months ago? guest: the sequester is the big issue.
that was small budget costs -- what it cuts. -- budget cuts. if we can maintain those cuts, that is a step in the right direction and if we can do something about rolling back obama care, we will see some progress. there are enrollment error stories, talking about the number signing up. what are your concerns on the technical aspect of the website? guest: it is not a failed website, it is a failed health care approach. can washington improve our health care system? they are welcome to. are the white house as they operating with free-market efficiency, i think he admitted that maybe the government should not be running this hold health care system, making those changes. every time the white house signs of a new individual for
medicaid, the person is on the system. president issues , what is goingn to happen when people show up on january 2? those of a kind of questions that this administration cannot find the answer for. >> as far as people who sign up for health care, what is the federal responsibility as far as funding is concerned? obamacare, for three years there are only 100% of that expansion. much more than you are currently funding.
the states need to have some skin in the game. i think the future it is a real question of whether or not you can continue to fund a hundred percent on that expansion. the legislature chose not to join in on the expansion. on -- inave taken kansas we can do a better job running our health care system by running itme from kansas rather than worrying about too many regulations from baltimore maryland. until guest is with us 8:30 to talk about affordable health care and other issues. here are the numbers --
tweet us and send an e-mail. this is eric from our democrat line. good morning. i think we should require insurance companies to spend our premiums on health care. the government spends three percent to run medicare. we need to screw filthy rich corporate executives and politicians and filthy rich -- $1 billion.l we would reduce the cost of -- th care by seven percent
he is obviously concerned about overhead and too many toes been taken out of the system. 10% overhead would be much greater than a system we are heading to with obamacare. at the end of the day the president palmist to take on those insurance companies. i am still try to figure out what happened in that meeting. what did he promises insurance companies in exchange to continue reissuing those policies that were canceled in the last few months. don't end of the day, i think we want politicians or bureaucrats running their health care system. host: from twitter -- we actually passed that
the president said he would veto that. when you looking at the folks that love obamacare. i don't believe he has that authority. we are not going to impose that penalty for a year. it is not working very well. it would have a more disastrous impact if he followed the letter of his own law. president said he is going to veto anything that is related to obamacare. in the meantime he continues to use executive actions to try to ignore significant parts of his health-care law. host: our next caller. caller: good morning. i have been in the health insurance business for 20 years.
they are not in any industry that is able to survive on $.20 margin. they could have a chance to exist. that is just the situation they have been put in. they have responded to the free market. it is 100% because of before the care act. i have been hearing the same things from constituents. it is becoming a greater issue as more and more providers are looking at other options. it is having a real bad impact already. estimatesally the just a couple of years ago say
that one fourth of our fighters would disappear under obamacare. it is going to happen across the land. even if you are able to receive your card and go into the doctor on january 2, you may find out your dr. you have had for 20 years is not in the system. that is when we are going to receive more calls. what are you going to do about a system that is not working the way it was intended. there is a story that deals with hospital costs for basic procedures. some of us to statistics -- some of the statistics -- what do you do about hospital
costs when it comes to the affordable care act? guest: the president is going to appoint an independent payment and advisory board. they are going to dictate all of these hundreds of billion is -- hundreds of billions of dollars. there is a better answer, it is called the markets and competitions. let the american consumer pick and choose. is this insurance company charging too much overhead or this one has a better buy. i think it should be left to the american people. you are going to continue to have these problems.
happens in the private sector is if you find a hospital is overcharging you, you learn pretty quickly and you are going to go to another one. host: look in the it which will do to go against and negotiate the price? caller: as long as you have someone else paying the bill, in my opinion, whether it is big government on one hand or insurance companies on the other, you need a system in which the consumers had the responsibility and the ability to negotiate and be directly involved in health care. health care is such a personal decision. that is why americans are so to a about losing access doctor and to put a bureaucrat in place of a doctor, they will reject it. host: representative huelskamp with this. democrat line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? is absolutely incredible this man can sit here and talk about
people not getting health care. people have a bit receiving health care for a very long time. people have not been getting health care for a very long time. to the host,spect if the president is listening to what i'm saying, if the country is listening to what i had to say, obamacare problem is there to fight again so many other things like nonprofits who are putting out misinformation about what he can and cannot do. all obama has to do is do one thing. an "s" too add obamacare and it becomes obama cares. thatemocratic approach is the democratic cares about health care. the republicans have no plan. guest: let me ask you a
question. i know the president is going to spend millions of dollars with more advertising, more promotion of his health care bill. how does that deliver any better care for americans in your mind? with all due respect, you have a nonprofit status. a lot of corporations have a nonprofit status. they can give out misinformation. they've done a horrible job in informing people about the lies. complete misinformation. you have billions of dollars from corporations from health insurance. guest: i appreciate that, but at the end of the day, you can promote this law you want but if and kansas, jeannie her premiums have gone up 50%. that is not a lie. story after story, and the nation,across this americans under obamacare are paying more for health insurance and are getting higher deductibles.
or plans are being canceled. that is the reality. washington can talk all day long, the media can talk about if it is good or bad but at the end of the day, i think americans are singing for what it is. i am hearing from dozens and dozens of decisions with these horror stories. they have lost their health care coverage. obamacare was supposed to do the opposite. folks like myself predicted that would happen, eddie. to me, it is not misinformation, it is relative. if you can't get the dr. you have had for 20 years, you're going to be very upset. it is because of obamacare. host: paul from pennsylvania joining us on our independent line. you're on with the representative. caller: good morning. back in 2010 when the arguments were taking place, senator mcconnell and republicans were saying to repeal the bill. there is very little information. far as the details about the bill. things became more feverish and all of a sudden, senator mcconnell said repeal and
replace. i was a little disappointed because i would like to see it go away. my insurance premium is going to go up 55% in january. since yout to know, guys have tried repeal it, symbolically, at least, 40 plus times, what you have in mind for replacement? guest: that is a great question. i mentioned a little bit ago, we have numerous alternatives but the most prevalent amongst those is the american health care reform act that has a number of things. at its core, instead of having bureaucrats and politicians in washington making these empower patients, and power consumers, and americans in their health care decision. we deal with tort reform. there is of that in obamacare. this outrageous increase in lawsuits in health care. we allow americans to push health care across state lines. we allow more competition. to me, it is going in the direction we should've have gone
three years ago. that is allowing americans to force insurance companies to compete rather than expecting washington to figure that out. is it going to go anywhere? i would like to see it come to the floor so we can have that debate. americans are rejecting obamacare i'm a losing support -- obamacare, losing support everyday. the question now is, how do we turn that around? i don't think any marketing is going to turn around to make them say, it is a good law, or in your case, 55% increase in the premiums. "the new york times" saying there are four hearings on the affordable care act. guest: this is the single largest expansion of government power in recent history. i think we need even more hearings to find out what is going on. i'm not sure of the topics of the hearings. what took place at the white house and the meetings between the president and the insurance companies? his two campaigns vilifying insurance companies, then meets privately behind
closed doors with them and suddenly, a number of them announce an agreement there going to ignore the obama care law, which is there going of his grandfather plans or non- grandfathered plants would go away. i would like to see what is occurring there. who decided health care.gov would be going live without proper security? who decided at the white house that healthcare.gov, the information into the insurance companies, which apparently further the information in error, who decided they would go ahead and approve that plan and move forward with that? these are the kinds of questions americans want the answers to. i would rather know them now than wait until january 2 when they find out. americans a show of the doctor they've always had, but that entrance and he will say, we don't have in the system. the republicans are going to continue to provide oversight. that is our constitutional responsibility. this is a massive increasing government power and right now it is not working well. host: one of those hearings will
be to examine whether mr. obama's rewriting his law by executive powers to alter it. guest: that is absolutely the case, that the white house has said over and over and folks that support obamacare in this town say it is the law of the land, so why is the president suspending the law of the land? if you are a large business, the provisions in obamacare that take place january 1, the president said, you know what, we're going to ignore that. it is those things i think americans are looking for fairness. if you have access to the white house or to power in this town, why do you get exempted from the law? that is what is occurring. those oversight hearings will continue to whether it is now or as the law actually becomes effective january 2. host: both hearings are part of a larger story about what congress has produced saying the 113 congress has passed all of 55 law so far this year. fewer than last. guest: my constituents probably think that is too many.
they don't want congress to a lot. they would like to see government to less. they would like to see a repeal will stop i know constituents differ across the country. measure the effectiveness by how many laws are passed. with the president announces he's going to veto bill after bill that comes through the house and harry reid doesn't take it up, it is unlikely he will end up on his desk. that is been the case in this town. there is a real gridlock. but obamacare did pass. i think particularly red state democrats are looking back, wishing i had not moved so quickly as they did on obamacare back in 2010. host: frank joins us from birmingham, alabama, democrat line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? before i get into the question about obamacare, you sound a little delusional like the individual that tweeted out rosa parks ended racism. would you like to apologize for parkstatement that rosa -- it was supposed to be good,
but he messed it up. you sound a little delusional. are you going to apologize for him? do you know what i'm talking about? guest: i do not. it's early in the morning. caller: celebrate rosa park standing up and the tweet was that she stood up and ended racism. anyway. guest: i haven't seen that tweet, but this is obamacare, and it is not about racism. it is about making sure americans have good health care. it is making the system worse. what is your question? host: frank is gone. we will go onto our next caller. we're joined by representative tim huelskamp, republican from kansas, in the first district. where is garfield, kansas? -- it is is not in my in my district.
it is a small town country. this is rural hospital area. that is what we're hearing about with obamacare. if you have a fancy car that says you have access, that doesn't work in many of these areas we have to drive 30, 40, 50 miles to your local hospital. host: our next call is from garfield, kansas, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? know who this i is. good morning, rachel. iller: i voted for you since first started voting. i'm a little concerned because, like you said, i live in a small community in the hospital where i will have to start going to see a physician because of obamacare. other than that, i want to say thank you for being a good christian man and standing up for your beliefs. guest: thank you, rachel. that is the concern i'm hearing across the state and across the nation, is this issue of access. asis a growing concern
providers find out what is in obamacare and are worried about that, as doctors again retiring earlier. those are the kinds of stories that worry me. irrespective of what is happening this town, we're losing access to providers. it is only been worse under obamacare. host: how much access to have the health care there in garfield? caller: there's no hospital or clinic in garfield. i have to drive 13 minutes to get to a hospital. i have to go three and half hours to get to a good hospital. next call, colorado on our independent line. caller: this guy is from the yellow brick road country. this is jive talking. i don't know why people keep calling themselves conservatives and tea party. some nonsense. guest: what is the nonsense? caller: every time i ask [indiscernible]
you haven't said anything yet. what are you going to do in place of it? for over 100 years, people have been trying to get americans with decent health care. what are you going to do? answer the question out right and stop stammering. appreciate that, chuck. there are a number of bills introduced. i will tell you what, i will limit this president will not compromise a single inch on health care. he is going to veto everything. everything that passes the house doing with health care, he says he's going to veto. he reread won't bring it up. i think the best alternative is the american health reform act which puts together a real package that puts you in charge of health care rather than bureaucrats and politicians in washington. i think would make a real difference. the system is not perfect but i believe before obamacare we had one, if not the best health care system in the world already. i'm worried about folks like rachel and others who have called in talking about a 30,
40, or doubling in premiums and those are the kinds of things that are scary. you can talk around that. that is what i'm hearing across america. folks are going to lose access. there are plans a been canceled. 5.5 million in the last month or so. it will worsen as we move forward. host: representative, there's a story about the budget matters, especially when it comes to the budget debate going on. one of the story says there's a likelihood of passing the short term cr, and that is a high one according to a house leadership aide. no decision has been made whether we do before we leave on december 13 or when we get back on generally seven. what is the likelihood of a short-term cr coming up? guest: it is hard to tell. in my opinion, it is pretty likely something will pass before the christmas break, but no decisions have been made. republicans haven't met and talked about that. that will happen, i think today, and make some decisions and decide.
there are some folks in this town who would like to see it shut down. i think harry reid would like to shut down. i think the president thought they would like to shut down. i think it was a disaster for democrats at the end of the day. i think it drew the attention of the americans the fact that republicans oppose obamacare, and it would like some alternatives. i do not know what is going happen in the next month. the idea washington is going to budget one month of the time or two months at a time or three months at a time rather than at least a year at a time, that is a real disaster. but it is been going on before this president came to office and probably will continue in the future. i think we need to get our act together. at the end of the day, we still have a $700 billion deficit. that has gotten lost in this discussion, the massive debt continues to not shrink and continues to pile up for future generations. host: would you support it, short-term deal for congressional resolution? guest: it would depend on what is in it. i think most conservatives would
say, we have to do something about obamacare. we have to show the american people would think it is not working. perhaps that would be not allowing the sixth in the medicaid funding to continue to be sent generally to blue states. if we can maintain the sequester level the that is a minor victory. you mentioned the shut down. would you support that prospect if it came up again? guest: i didn't support the last one. there's no bill of a shutdown. when the president and senator reid said, give me everything i want or we will show the government down, we passed 14 bills while the senate has none. i think we blinked but it did draw attention to the failures of obamacare and the fact the president and the democrats -- they own obamacare. that is not the republican of the -- that is not the fault of
the republicans. obamacare is unpopular. it will become increasingly unpopular as we deal with these budget issues. we don't want to distract from the signature health-care law of the president of the united states. host: oregon, democrat line. caller: good morning. i have been a registered nurse, hospital-based since 1966 during the vietnam war. so i know a little bit about health care. years war for profit model. -- my first years were for- profit model. it doesn't work. the network for the oldest not- for-profit hmo over the country -- in the country. this is an organization that is really a gold standard for health care. the problem with for-profit is, everything is the bottom line. i've been to many conferences around the country. i have talked to nurses who in the past have worked for
columbiaions ala medical who cooked the books and got caught, didn't have equipment to take care patients and went home crying at night because the bottom line was that increased evidence. i said, you know, how did you ever survive? well, i moved on because i was afraid it would kill someone and i could live with that. retiring, many are vintage. jen the vietnam war, a lot of corpsman went to school and became doctors and nurses and are getting ready to retire. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: how does the free market system not work in health care? i've seen how it does not work. the consumer does not have bargaining power. for-profits should not be an option for health care. apply i think economics
in the medical field just like anywhere else. i presume you receive a salary obviously as a nurse and they pay you more, you might move to another facility. the the idea that consumers can't or do not have the capacity to make decisions about cost, i reject that notion. currently in the system, it is mixed up. if you have an insurance company or the government paying the bill, it's i'll worry about that when it is paid by me. i think at the end of the day, if we put more consumers and to make those choices, to decide, this hospital does a better job or this doctor does. right now the decision is usually made by the insurance company where the government. republicans have decided to introduce a bill, american health care reform act, that would put more decisions in your hands rather than in the hands of washington, by allowing those choices, by allowing americans to pick and choose their doctor. i think you'll see an
improvement in the health care system and more responsibility for the individual. host: jim, georgia, republican line. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning commerce men huelskamp. --good morning, commerce men huelskamp. i have a fan of football and of a couple of comments and questions. theama lost, that's beside point, we're still number one in our minds. you guys have got the ball going on the other side of the 50 yard line now. they talk about the health-care law on the podium, his popularity goes a little lower. playing into harry reid's hands with any kind of shut down or blockage, i think ,snbc and cbs and cnn, the cheerleaders have to talk about how bad it is now. the have to. they would be lying if they didn't. they are cheerleaders and
i understand that. they're clear on their opinion. at the end of the day you can surely but the facts are the facts and americans are losing access to their doctor -- you can cheerlead but the facts are the facts and americans are losing access to their doctors. argumentmade a great that they can engineer another shutdown, but there is no shutdown bill. there's a shut down the house and senate and the president don't come to an agreement. all three have to come to an agreement. two of those are controlled by the democrat party, one by the republican party. if harry reid wants to show the government down, he can do that. i would say they are dangerous territory with the shut down. i think americans are not only looking for status quo, continue to move things forward -- jim, i think you're looking for that. they're saying, where do we go from here? how do we improve the health care system? how do we repeal obamacare and replace it with something that
actually works? we think we have some answers out there. we don't just need one answer, we need two or three or four because this is complicated. host: in e-mail says -- guest: pre-existing conditions were supposedly taking care of and obamacare. i'm uncertain what the issue is there. those issues are not easily answered. that we do have an answer under the american health care reform act and other proposals. allowing folks to buy and groups nationwide, which would help address some of those things. at the end of the day, the best proposal, we need to move from the direction where americans , not theheir insurance government. we have a system in which that is encouraged. i think we need to move in the direction of patient-control.
host: new jersey, independent line. caller: i have a question. first of all, you said individuals should be able to buy a policy and then you go to groups should buy a policy. jersey, a policy in new but it was from another state. they raised my policy 67% and i have no control over it. now, you tell me you're going to be able to fix that? guest: is this under obamacare? this is before obamacare. since obamacare, my policy has gone down twice. guest: then you're getting quite a deal. that is a story i'm not hearing from any kansans. they are 30% -- caller: i am new jersey. why do you always [indiscernible] sorry?
caller: i am from new jersey. i went to another state, i had no control over the price. guest: you're not allowed to buy in another state. their federal restrictions on doing that. caller: i didn't buy in new jersey. guest: ok. so your premium is going down under obamacare? caller: twice. guest: they could not have gone down twice, because the premium not has not gone down -- gone over your. caller: it is gone down twice. guest: that is unusual. there are some folks who may have reductions, but the ones that are being harmed the most, and you don't sound you're like at this age, are under 35 that thehaving massive spikes in premium costs. blue cross and blue shield of kansas where i'm from, they told us last spring there will be at 100% increase for folks under 35. those are the folks getting hammered the most. those are the ones at least
understand the law according to the latest polls. , shouldthleen sebelius she resigned from her position over this? guest: i believe so. this was protectable. she is a long history of failed projects in kansas. here's the inherent problem. kathleen sebelius believes she should be our nations insurance commissioner, that she should dictate his decisions across 50 states. a great example of that is when the president, by executive action said, you know what? this grandfathering issue, we're going to wipe that off the law and continued to move forward and act like the law doesn't say what it says about grandfathering. because of these cancellations. they try to dictate that in every state and not overstate what along with that. i think kathleen sebelius has been a miserable failure in his job. i did not want her to have it. others in kansas were happy to see her go. i think we need a different hhs secretary in a different health- care law. host: you talked about former
i.t. projects. give some examples. guest: i was chairman of the i.t. committee and the state for many years and we review these projects, whether it was at labor or medicaid or transportation project. a lot of failed i.t. projects at the end of the day. she does not have a good track record on these issues. healthcare.gov is a failed i.t. project. the real failure is the law. it is not just the website. at the end of the day, i think they're going to make some progress on that but it doesn't fix the law. host: we just saw the front page of the website and there's that deadline that has been met for people to be insured by january 1. what happens if people are still having problems by then? what do you think will be the white house response? guest: they will extend the deadline like everything else. they will say they will ignore that in the law. on does one get insurance december 23rd, supposedly, and somehow show up at the doctor and jennifer for storage in your second? it's not going to happen.
it will not move that quickly -- it will not move that quickly. thing, you next big won't get your doctor. host: sue from illinois. she is on our democrat line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment, first you have been using obamacare since 2010. do you personally have any children between the ages of 18 and 26 entering college that you're able to use insurance under the affordable care act for your children? i know a lot of republicans over here that do. it is ok for y'all to use the affordable care act and have been since 2010 for your own children who are insured because of the affordable care act until they're 26, but you don't want anyone else to use it.
so when you say a system is failing, it hasn't been failing, it has been working. i'm going to agree with a gentle man from new jersey. you quickly cut him off and try to tell him that did not happen and he is try to tell you his insurance did drop twice and you're sitting there telling him no. you are real quick with the tongue, but you never answered the question. what are you going to do in replacement? signedil rights bill was in 1964, and it took y'all in georgia until 1982 for you to start and locating all of its full law. even though it was the law of the land. that is my comment. guest: i think it a question at the beginning, and i don't have any children in the 18 to 26 in college. soon.lly i will i do have quite virtual event. at the end of the day, there are provisions in the law that it been in effect for the last few
years, but they are real damaging impact. it is when people are getting this cancellation notices. jersey chuck from new who said his premiums are going down, there are a few of the stories, but we are talking the percent of the folks coming in to congress today are upset. they are worried. they have lost their health care plan that had for years. story after story after story. i don't know what you tell them. it is the fault of obamacare. i don't think they will fix that. you're not going to go back and make insurance cheaper. prices are going up in a direct response to obamacare. sorry,jeff from maine -- nebraska, republican line. caller: i find it absolutely --zing that these democrats they forget the scene where we watched a horseshoe of congressmen and
the president sitting in the middle, and the president -- did you hear me in the beginning? host: yes, sir, go ahead. caller: i find it amazing that democrats don't remember this big horseshoe of congressional people and the president sitting ,n the middle saying, you know winning an election has consequences. and they shut this thing down america's throat. the democrats don't want to remember that. oute were people putting alternatives, republicans, every single one of them, and they accepted none of them. these democrats need to get off that little trip. the second thing is, don't pay attention to these progressives. every single one of them are going to call in and say he's lying and he knows he's lying. thanks. guest: i appreciate the
comments. you're absolutely right. this is a democrat bill. there's no if, and, or but about it. they own it. they own everybody. they own every story. folks having massive increases in their premiums. american families are getting hurt over this. i don't know what we can do about it in washington ever president that refuses to do anything other than executive action, china change that. the ones where most of us are running for reelection in the midst of a very bad year. those are the folks that are desperate that something changes and yuri reid and president obama are saying, too bad. this is our law were going to stick with it. call.one more springfield, missouri, independent line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. host: you are on. caller: good morning. i have done coding and handle
the building -- ailing of insurance claims. billing of insurance claims. on fixed paid amounts for offices and procedures and diagnostic testing, but that being said, the insurance companies are voiding contracts with physicians and hospitals [indiscernible] you are breaking up. try it one more time. go ahead, please. caller: insurance companies are voiding checks with physicians and hospitals. insurance companies have had to pay out big because of medical treatments like cancer treatments and the big diagnostic testing facilities. host: i'm sorry, your fading out.
if you wanted to respond to what she said? guest: i think she's expressing the concern there's lack of competition in that any americans don't have many choices of health care plans and their choices are rapidly declining. .e need more competition when kathleen sebelius first took over as insurance commissioner, we had five or six or seven. folks could choose. now we're down to basically one, maybe two. competition, not less. with obamacare, i think there will be a fact, there will be less interns companies. if you don't force them to compete, and that is the republican option, let them compete. host: tim huelskamp from kansas, talking about the affordable care act. thank you for your time. coming up, we're going to change gears and talk about iran as a
tentative u.s. iran agreement over nuclear facilities. gregory meeks, democrat from new york, will talk about the deal, his thoughts and where we go forward. in an update on the so-called vo lker rule. those discussions in a bit. first, an update on news from c- span radio. >> the consumer financial protection bureau is expanding its oversight of companies that collect student loan payments. by thebeing issued today bureau extends the agency supervision to non-bank happenings that manage large flames of student loans on behalf of lenders. it says the scrutiny is needed to ensure servicers comply with consumer laws at a time when more people are falling behind on her student loan payments. non-bank loan services like sallie mae manage far worse accounts and answer the questions. sallie mae also is the biggest
u.s. student lender. loans to student of on education from the 2012 program for international student assessment, an exam given to 15-year-old worldwide shows the 90 students lagging in math and just average in reading. american students fail to place in the top 20 in any category. education secretary arne duncan calls the result "picture of educational stagnation coastal but added we must invest in early education, raise academic standards, and do more to notchit and obtain top- educators. top scoring teams are in singapore, south korea, japan, and hong kong. an update on the new york city ormuter train derailment reporting investigators believe the operator of the train involved in the jarrell meant on sunday fell asleep prior to the incident. william rockefeller all but admitted he dozed off.
sources say he was, in their words, jolted from a sleep and hit the break. but he did not have enough time to stop the train as they headed into a curve rated for only 30 miles an hour at a speed of greater than 82 miles per hour. four people were killed and over 60 were injured in the derailment. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. tables out front with lots of pamphlets. prior to entering the gun show. the pamphlets are how the government is trying to take away your right to own guns and the government in his and obama is doing that and obamacare is terrible. so those were the guys i wanted to talk to because they were the ones with the ideas, the leaflets. i said, is this your stuff? they said, yes, your you? i said, i'm in academic imaging academic-- i'm an doing research. i actually study men who believe this stuff. , asking questions,
looked at me suspiciously. i said, here's what i am. i don't get it. here's my job. i want to understand how you see the world. i want to understand that your worldview. look, you will not convince me and i will not convince you. that is off the table. what is on the table as i want to understand why you think the way you do. >> downward mobility, racial and gender equality. the fears, anxiety, and rage of angry white men. sunday night at 9:00. part of booktv this week and on c-span 2. bring public affairs events from washington directly to you for putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private
industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now, you can watch as in hd. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us, gregory meeks from new york, member of the foreign affairs committee, represents new york, the fifth district. welcome, sir. recently, this announced deal between u.s. and iran and some of the highlights it includes is a for step toward a more conference of packed. it freezes or reverses projects and major facilities, halts installation of new centrifuges. what do you think about the deal? guest: significant deal. what iss significant is not acceptable to anybody is iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.
we have got to make sure, and i think that is the number one deal. we continue these negotiations. while these negotiations are continuing, iran cannot continue toward the path of obtaining nuclear weapons. so all of iran's attempts to increase uranium ore enrichment of uranium comes to a halt. havef its centrifuges that been utilized and are looking to create comes to a halt. we now have a six month period of time where we know they're not moving forward with the program. to a degree, they're rolling back. an opportunity to come with a long-range agreement that can virtually change the middle east in a way that iran has operated with trying to obtain a nuclear weapon. host: so it is temporary. guest: absolutely. it is a six-month agreement while they continue to negotiate and try to find a permanent
agreement. what is also important in this aspect is, it is the p5+1. i am a firm believer and having diplomacy and doing it in a multilateral way. when you look at the countries that are also involved in this, everybody has a stake in again. germany, france, china, and russia, the united states and the plus one being the european union. everyone is at the table. everybody has a stake in this. at least for the first six months and hopefully we can work on agreement that will last and be permanent, iran would not have a nuclear weapon. that is the number one goal. been told by the state department west has to happen? negotiate. have to what has to happen, they have to abide by this. if they don't abide, all options, we still have all options available to us.
that then agreement last six months, the sanctions that have been created by the congress, for the most part, remain in place. piece the -- just a small piece the administration has in regards to enforcement they will look as far as good faith is concerned, but there is a trust issue. i think that is why the six- month period of time is good to see if iran lives up to its part of the agreement. let me tell you, this agreement also calls for daily inspections. thetype of review by inspector that is never happened before. information based upon his agreement that never was available before. we will be able to tell what is going on, what type of program iran had as opposed to speculating as we have been in the past. there are all kinds -- there is
all kind of information we can get from this. hopefully at the end, we end up with a solution that will assure everyone that iran never has a nuclear weapon. host: did you support sanctions against iran? guest: yes, i did and do. host: what about the senate side, concerns of more sanctions? guest: i think right now what we need to do, we have the sanctions that are in place that have crippled iran. i agree it has forced them to the table. we're saying the threat if iran does not abide by this agreement, then whether we use additional sanctions or anything else to prevent them from having a military -- a nuclear weapon, we will do that. that is not off the table. the fact i don't think we need to do sanctions or additional sanctions right now, what they should know, iran and every one should know, if iran does not live up to the agreement that has been made, then additional
sanctions and other activity would be in place because we are not going to allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. here's a chance to do that in a diplomatic way without going to war, without having any military intervention. you always give diplomacy a chance. and do it in a multilateral way because everything is interconnected. so all of those elements are part of this deal. i think it is very important that it is done that way. host: the topic is iran with our guest gregory meeks. you can also tweak us. senator chuck schumer put out an announcement, press release come in which he says as traditional sanctions, disproportionality of disagreement to the more likely
that democrats and republicans will join together and has additional sanctions when we return in december. i intend to discuss the possibility with my colleagues. i'm interested in his wording. guest: i think we look at the agreement in its totality, and how it was negotiated, clearly, transparency that has never happened before. and where we would be had we not have this agreement, if the decrease agreement -- a degree midwest on a place, if there is nothing to stop iran from continuing to enrich and move toward a nuclear weapon, this agreement stops that. that is significant. in return, we are not removing the sanctions that was placed on iran by the congress. we're talking about iran gets relief of some $8 billion to $9 billion from elite for humanitarian and medicine purposes. primarily for humanitarian
and medicine purposes. iran continues to lose $30 billion or $40 billion. so the relief they get is nothing in comparison to the continued sanctions that is placed upon them. host: is it your concern if additional sanctions would derail this deal? is a trustn, there factor. we have a trust factor with whether they will verify and continue with this agreement. i think that i trust factor with us, to be quite honest, and they want to make sure we are being --trustful,mas to too. we will see what takes place down the line between now and the next six months, whether they live up to the agreement or not. host: our first call, st. thomas, virgin islands, democrat line. caller: good morning. good morning representative meeks. feel, [indiscernible]
-- you state of israel know it is a known fact that israel has a nuclear weapon. it is your can give up one or two of their nuclear weapons, and may give incentive to stop. it may go along way. guest: israel is our strongest ally in the middle east and the u.s. stands by israel. when you have individuals in the region who says israel does not have the right to exist, we are not going to allow anyone to destroy the state of israel. we are going to stand by them 100%. i think it is in the best interest of iran to abide by this agreement and not move forward in reference to nuclear weapons, and then we try to figure out another dialogue.
host: israel is self critical of the agreement. guest: they are. i would imagine they want to continue the pressure and we will continue to pressure iran. but israel's main goal as it is p5+1ain goal as it is the 's main goal, the objective is for iran not to obtain a nuclear weapon. but this agreement focus, iran not to obtain a nuclear weapon. to try to get that end result without having any military actions or anything of that nature taking place. host: ralph, dallas, republican line. caller: good morning. is, how you guys are going to be able to get the inspectors over there to take a look on a check and see on the things that are happening from a center fuses, when they're only going to show you what they want to show you -- happening,
centrifuges and a when they're only going to show you what they want to show you? guest: the inspectors will have unfettered access to whatever they need to have access to. they will be making requests to go on a daily basis to wherever they want to go so they can see what is taking place. now, we know based upon intelligence of certain facilities that exist currently, and by being on the ground, by walking around, the iranians have agreed to give implead access to the inspectors. they will be able to walk and find and look wherever they think or suspect there had been a nuclear reactor or nuclear program moving forward. host: the former secretaries of state kissinger officials have a joint op-ed in "the wall street journal" talking about what a final iran doma stew. they finish with this saying --
guest: i don't necessarily disagree with that. hopefully, that will be in negotiations, the ultimate end. that they will have to give up certain centrifuges and nuclear reactors and not be able to uranium.uclear-grade that is the ultimate end. that will prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. i think that is the goal we are moving forward. host: why do you think iran would give up that much? to theif you listen iranians recently, they say they don't care about the nuclear weapon. inave heard them say conversations i've had with some of the parliamentarians, they religion against their to actually have a nuclear weapon. it's not like there hasn't been a debate within iran itself in regards to nuclear weapons program. it's not like all of iranians
have said they want to move forward with nuclear weapons. they have been divided with their own society. they have that constant debate themselves. i think the iranian people made a choice when they decided to elect a more moderate president this time than they had previously. and so part of the voices of the tonian people are starting stare up also. they want to -- my hope is, and we will see whether or not they abide by the agreement and move forward, but my hope is that they would want to be a part of the international community. they cannot be part of the international community if in fact they have a nuclear weapon. as i said, it is important that russia and china has a stake in is also because here are individual countries who previously had not had a stake in this. important for them to have
this p5+1 come together. if iran really wants to get back to the international committee, they know they can do it, but now with a nuclear weapon. host: talk about the new ron hassan he. the kinds of messages you sent out publicly has been the right kind of messages. but there is a question of trust, whether or not the words match the deed. we don't know that until the as we say, exists -- you put up or shut up. this agreement means to have an opportunity to put up. words match orur deeds. and we will know that if you abide by this agreement or not. seems as though they the a message of warning
change -- tournament change in the way they have been moving forward. we will see. we have to verify. as i said, there's a huge trust issue. we have six months to see whether they deliver and to see whether the negotiations continued to where we can have a final agreement. host: what do you think the supreme leadership will have on this? guest: on their process, the supreme leader has some influence. i would imagine this is a conversation taking place now. i would think a president rouhani did not have the go ahead, we wouldn't be where we are now. but the focus will be on the supreme leader, on the president, and the iranian people as we move forward to see if in fact they're going to live up to their commitment. host: representative gregory meeks is our guest, susan, independent line. good morning. mr. meeks, i assume you would agree that the united states
claims about itself that it abides by the rule of law. the nonproliferation treaty, the governsthe treaty that nuclear proliferation throughout the world. iran is a signatory to that treaty. it has abided by that treaty. inspection,constant contrary to what you said, iran is under inspection. -- you say iran wants a nuclear weapon and then later you said, no, they don't want a nuclear weapon. you are correct. they do not want a nuclear weapon. they have said that repeatedly for years and years, not just cents rouhani was elected. stationsen the power in the pylons set up for miles and miles in order for iran to be able to establish new cities
because they have a rapidly urbanizing population. another point, israel is not our ally. they cannot be an ally because they are not signatories to the nonproliferation treaty, and they do not have declared borders. in the third and final point, i think your attitude of sanctioning and punishing is sadistic. it is sadistic. message fromy, the former president ahmadinejad and the message from president rouhani is completely different. thus far. the question is whether or not -- the words are different, are the deeds different? ahmadinejad would talk about their right to do whatever they want with reference to nuclear weapons and having a nuclear iran. that message has been completely different from rouhani -- in
words. we want to see in deeds if it is. that is why this agreement is important. clearly, israel has been a strong stabilizer in the middle east. we stand by israel. i think most israelis would want, and we want, peace in the region so everybody can live in a harmonious way. that is the goal. when you talk about the world today, everything is interconnected. reason why it is significant. it is not just the united states. it is the p5+1 and dealing and diplomacy a multilateral way. it is tremendously important. if in fact were going to get to a different middle east and a more peaceful world. host: you talk about trust. from twitter -- that is why said they don't trust. that is why i believe the give
back they have agreed upon, especially doing some giving up point $9 billion primarily for human a train purposes, is a test -- $8.9 billion, primarily. ratcheting upt of sanctions if they don't live up to their commitment. i think that is what the give back is on the p5+1. we are going to do this, you do that because they have to go back and forth also. that is where we are. host: jim, texas, up next on the republican line. i think it is iran, texas. caller: ira. host: sorry ,ira, texas. how manyonnor spent, dirty bombs to think a rainy and can make with the material they have -- congressman, how many dirty bombs do you think they can make with the materials they
have on hand? anyt: they can't make nuclear weapons right now, and that is what the focus of this is, to prevent that from happening in obtaining any nuclear weapons. now, it they have right must sources say if you look at today, they could not produce mostuclear weapon -- sources say if you look at today, they cannot produce any nuclear weapons. some say one year, some say six months. as of right now, they don't have the ability -- and with this agreement does, he rolls back -- it rolls back what they have in existence. any enrichment, yet to have enrichment up to 20%. this rolls everything back to 5%. they have to stop the programs they have currently. what this agreement does, it prevents them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which they do not have the ability to do right now as we speak. host: our guest is representative gregory meeks
from new york and also serves on the foreign affairs committee, talking about the topic of the was agreement and other .ountries with iran that is the topic for the next 15 minutes or so. you can call us on one of three lines of you want to talk to him -- floyd, louisiana, independent line. caller: yes, mr. meeks. israel --ned earlier i heard numerous things. israel our greatest ally in the middle east. a i'vealways wondered am never seen any statistics on it, how many israelis have fought and died in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq? also, how can there be a post iran-era when israel -- everybody has them.
threat.'re not a there are more threats in pakistan and afghanistan and there are in iran, i believe. guest: let me just say this. what has happened in that region is, you have other nations that have consistently said that israel does not have the right to exist. you have a former president of iran, mr. ahmadinejad, who said it was his goal to wipe israel off the map. so when you have that happening in the region, the have the right to try to defend your self. that is what israel has done. i know from visiting israel the most of the israelis, what they want is to be able to live in peace with its neighbors, also. we want to make sure that we try to have a climate in which that can happen. so that is why this agreement is important. i think iran is a significant nation in the area.
they have been supporters of that haveand others had as have various concerns. for them to have a nuclear weapon, if you talk to any country in the region, they will tell you that it is a nonstarter, that iran should not just not just israel, not the united states, but if you talk to any of those countries in the region or any of the p5+1 nations, they all say that iran should not have a nuclear weapon. and the u.n. it is the world coming together that is moving forward in this direction. and i think doing so in a wise manner, hopefully, they can change some of what has taken place in the region. but we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do. i don't want to give the impression that this is easy stuff. this is very tough stuff. i think secretary john kerry and president obama have been going
at it in a slow but methodical manner, and we have to continue to grind it out. host: cnn reported on of the deals they set a particular point of contention is iran's assistance that the right under international agreement to enrich uranium the message to iran should be the should be that you are insisting on the right to enrich. you are. you do not do final negotiations and public. only knows that we have some preliminary to work on. what we did not want to happen mama and why this is important continue negotiating with iran or implemented nuclear
programs and you could negotiate without this, but then there will be nothing to prevent iran from continuing to enrich and moving forward with this nuclear program. what this says is let's continue to negotiate, but while we're not negotiating, you cannot continue with this program. they agreed to do that. we are going to verify, because we're worried of daily inspections. that is what is important and significant about this agreement. deal does the final require congressional input? guest: i'm sure there will be congressional input, because the only one who can given the sections that are currently placed on iran by congress is congress. they cannot be removed without congresses consent. it comes back to us. what we do know is that for the we willext six months be negotiating something that will be accountable for every.
good morning. thank you very much c-span, very honored to speak with you this morning. after hearing everybody else here, i am kind of a they lost because i have learned a few things here. my question is more along the -- when is the u.n. going to step up and start policing things a little better? coasts, thatf the is just ridiculous. i think the u.n. needs to step up and do more things. about, i have a question since nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction are all lumped in together, why isn't this also addressing chemical weapons and weapons of that nature? does one weapon kill more people than another?
d so, since iran has ha big connections now in syria, what is to have prevented them from stockpiling weapons there? is anyone going to be checking on that? negotiations are always preferable, as opposed to the guess isve, which i war. i'm all for this deal, so long as it is maintained. it has to be made a, people need to be checked out, these the saudis need to be valid. it needs to be unfettered access to these inspectors, or does not just -- or does not going to work. why -- guest:s
that is why this is unprecedented. some -- ability to change with the things that have taken place. one of the problems in the past with the u.n. is getting all of the permanent members of the u.n. working together, ./ some of the countries have beat up our. two of the countries that generally be told things when we want to go in that are russia and china. they are now part of this deal. but they have stake in this game now for asignificant deal with iran, and hopefully -- again, i am one of those people nk you need to verify. with us working closely together on the kinds of issues that affect everybody that lives on this planet, that is where the
u.n. comes in. that kind of negotiation and diplomacy which is important in today's connected world. a story coming out of the associated press, iran's foreign ministry on tuesday asked afghanistan not to sign a security deal with the u.s. but you keep thousands of americans and allied forces in his neighboring country for another decade. guest: that surprises me. you have elements in iran who do not want iran to sign this deal. they do not want iran to be part of the global community. stories and to hear those elements rise, and those voices happen because there's nobody 100%. your grid to have dissenting voices in any nation, and so that does not surprise me. that is where leadership becomes important. that is where i believe, as i
the cochair of a ongressin the c called the dialogue caucus. talking, to have a dialogue and that way we can try to resolve issues on a political basis with leadership, and represent the majority of the people. that does not surprise me. i think your grid here other us stories and statements about of individuals who would love to destroy -- derail the thing. as long as the government lives up to its agreement. if the government does not, then we know that there'll be other people who want to try to sidetrack you, because they do not want it to happen. illsif the government fulf its commitments, we will move
forward. john, from iowa, go ahead. question for a mr. meeks. the plane that went down on 9/11, only explosives could have done that. are using is scientifically impossible, the impossibility of this expedition of why building seven fell, and reviewed the evidence in this controlled devolution? nothing devastated me more than what took place on 9/11. i knew individuals that lost their lives in that horrific event. tantamount to an act of
war as far as i was concerned. there is, and i have gone through, with all of the experts, i know a lot of individuals have these different conspiracy theories, and i'm planesed that those two were the ones that caused the destruction and the deaths of over 3000 people in new york on 9/11, that horrific day. to thisur reaction story about the metro train crash? myst: again, my heart and prayers go out to the families of those that lost loved ones. jured.that are in i want a full and complete investigation. i am horrified by some of the reports that have come out this morning but that the conduct your may have fallen asleep, and to travel over 80 miles per hour in a 30 mile zone, that is
devastating. i would hope that the inspectors will come out with a complete report to figure out what went wrong, and white went wrong. it was human error, mechanical error, and what we should do to prevent any such accidents in the future. >> robert from san jose, how afford -- california. caller: i am very concerned about this agreement because it acts as a foil to her event the israelis from attacking it ran by having every major site covered with inspectors. this is another example of one of obama's hidden foreign policy initiatives over the past five years. he is had secret negotiations me, the israelis, excuse
with the radians, and we have seen him at the same time alienate many of our allies in the media it's -- in the mideast. doesn't this act is a clever ploy to keep the israelis from attacking and defending their own national interest -- >> the secret meetings with iranians, where'd you get that from? caller: that was in the press this past week. nott: the meetings have .een anything but on the p5+1 what you're talking about now is making sure and verifying, the whole idea was for iran to not having nuclear weapons. if we had gone in this manner before with iraq, where we railroad -- were able to go and massy no weapons of instruction there, let defectors go where they want unfettered,
then maybe we would have been able to avoid the thousands of , thecan lives that we lost devastation to our economy that we had. cy as go, give diplomas chance. if in fact around does not live up to the agreement, we have 20 of time and the ability to do -- toings, to decrease increase the sanction, and do anything else we need to do to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. host: to what extent have you been on these negotiations? guest: i have been in contact with the white house. there will be classified meetings with members of congress reporting on where we are, what is going on in iran. as a member of the of the committee i have been there. host: who will conduct those meetings? guest: we cannot go into that right now.
host: willoughby secretary kerry -- will it be secretary kerry? guest: it will not. but we hope to speak to him in the future. he has been working tremendously in the area as well as a dust in the area of diplomacy to make this a more peaceful place. froms have changed so much 50 or 60 years ago. you used to think in america that those two oceans would separate us and protect us. that is no longer true. the intelligence committees this weekend talked about how we are still in danger. we have to work in any and all types of manners to make this the safety of the folks of the united states as well as working collectively with our allies around the world to make
this a safer place because you cannot hide from it. there is no ocean that is going to protect you. caller: good morning. mr. meeks, i have a question for you. when was the last time that the -- starved aa country into submission and made them our friends? it does not work. if we do not get a hold of israel, and get them under control, there will never be peace in the middle east. we have the tail wagging the dog right now. we have israel telling us what to do, we cannot get anything done in the u.n. because there is -- parrot.e, that is my
we cannot get anything done, because everybody has a veto. we cannot get anything done. israel is basically telling us what to do, and we just go along. we cannot just carve the iranians into submission, but that is hate. sanctions have worked. they worked in south africa, where we saw that the south african government changed as a result of sanctions. it was a military intervention or anything of that nature, so we have seen the sanctions work in the past. sanctions havee worked to the point now, that is why the arabians are at the table. it seems clear to me that sanctions have worked. the you to do now is once sanctions have worked, and you get individuals to the table, you start negotiating by neustar working get out, you would hope that you would have something that is more long-lasting. that is what we are attempting to do here.
say, we probably would not be where we are right now, had it not been for sanctions. clearly, they worked, and they worked in sapulpa got -- in south africa and changed the apartheid regime. host: the last callers point about iran and the united states, the associated press says that the first iranian meeting was in march shortly after it occurred, they be learned of further indication of secret diplomacy in the fall and pressed the other one officials further. guest: if you're talking, you have people talking and that is a good thing. to -- i am the head
of the dialogue caucus, talking is good. you have to talk to your enemies also if you're to try to change the relationship. understand, i do not know his unsubstantiated but i know from my viewpoint, having dialogue and have a conversation with individuals is a positive thing. you do not have to give up who you are, or what you represent and trying to reach out and talk. i think that there needs to be more pulmonary -- parliamentarian talks. from iran, or anyplace else in the world, we need to have more dialogue and conversation. william is our last call on the independent line. caller: good morning. i was wondering, i am a firm believer that nobody at all should have nuclear weapons. what is to stop the research that the arabians have gotten to
this point from falling into the wrong hands? think that based upon all of the intelligence that we have, that the arabians thus far have not been able to develop a nuclear weapon. --are going to continue to ideally what you say is a goal that i hope we get to. that nobody has nuclear weapons. that is why we had the going oneration treaty with united states and russia, starting to talk about how we thegoing to tramp down number of nuclear weapons we had. it just takes time. went to work at it, and hopefully one day, we'll have a place where nuclear weapons are not a threat to anybody. what nuclear weapons are is a threat to the entire world. is that right?
that we're not at that point right now? widgets -- we have to slowly and methodically get there. we will see. up, we have, first to clarify, we are to take it day by day. transparency, and hopefully during this time we will be able to negotiate a deal that could changermanent deal, and the situation in the middle east as we know it. quick art test has been representative -- host: our guest has been representative gregory meeks. lastly today, we will look at the so-called volcker rule. risk designed to curb the taken by banks. first we will get a news update
from c-span radio. >> more international news does that -- this hour. vice president biden is in japan, where he says the u.s. is deeply concerned about its it controls the airspace over the islets claimed and the south sea. he will work on this issue with great specificity when he meets with chinese president. you -- u.s.ys that home prices rose only modestly thattober, adding to signs prices have stabilized after big gains this year. 0.1%, which isd down sharply.
president obama has tried to turn around public opinion, this following a cvs news poll from late last month, showing a 65% disapproval of the president's handling of health care. while the president will be focusing on the benefits of the law at the health -- at the white house, it is the first of a drive of three weeks that will emphasize a different benefit each day until the enrollment deadline for the january 1 coverage. c-span is covering the event. those are some of the latest headlines. age eight, betty ford knew she wanted to do something with dance. she would put on skits and lays, and that led her to the school of dance. these are some of her notecards from her spiral notebooks were
she kept notes. this is her organizer. thisg this time she kept with her and carried it to vermont, back to grand rapids come a off to new york where she studied with martha graham and for the powers modeling agency. then back to grand rapids again, so in it you'll find a whole host of things that you would find in any organizer. --re are roosters are brochures on dance costumes, some of the costumes for the dance routines she wanted to put on. here are choreography notes that she made four different dance routines. there is a whole wealth of material in here that talks about her love for dance and how deeply she was involved in the especially in hurley years. >> watch our program on our saturdayy betty ford
on c-span at 7 p.m. eastern. we will look at first lady roselyn carter. >> washington journal continues. host: our final guest of the moral its. patterson of the wall street journal, and he is a staff reporter for the organization. he is here to talk about something called the volcker rule. what is it? > the 2010.is part of frank lautenberg are passed in response to the financial crisis of the previous years. in order to reform the banking system and the financial system. the vocal rule is -- volcker rule is a key part of that. it is designed to keep the banks from engaging in excessively risky activities. including what people call retired terry trading. prop trading is easily when a bank takes its own money and
makes bets on it in order to profit -- early to profit -- purely to profit. the concern to congress was that these banks have deposits from clients that are federally insured. they wanted to separate those activities of proprietary trading from the commercial banking activities where you have some federal backing. now the rule after many years of wrangling is fairly about to come out. been threerule has years in the making. what has been taking it so long? guest: a number of things. it is very complicated. it sounds simple, but actually putting it in place has proved to be a creaky lay in task -- huge task.
you also have five federal regulators involved in writing the rule, which was another decision that congress made because they wanted to make sure that there were bank regulators involved. the federal reserve, the fdic, and others, as well as market regulators, the securities and exchange commission, and the bodies futures trading commission -- commodities futures trading commission. you have rulemakers on all of those groups talking together trying to figure out what the language should be. it has been a very opaque process. these regulators do not talk hourly about what is going on behind the scenes. the reporting that we have done over the past few years, we have been able to get a glimpse of how that has been going, and that it has been
extremely tough extremely compensated. tough, extremely complicated. host: are the five regulators involved in agreement on how the law should look? butt: they mostly are, there are a few issues that they are hammering out at the last minute. that is what we are trying to follow right now, is how that information is progressing. aroundtold it centers this issue of how do you differentiate proprietary trading from other legitimate activities are allowed activities at the banks? thats to lots of things help people. they do not just go out and make big that's and throw parties. that is the image that people got coming out of 2008. they help fund companies, they
trade bonds for companies, they issue stocks for companies. that is market-making, and that is legitimate allowed activity that banks need to keep doing to keep the economy going. the regulators are concerned define proprietary trading in a certain way, you will in some ways limit that other activity. coming up with the right balance of language is really apparently what they are fighting right now. and awe will talk details little bit about the rule itself , but scott patterson is going to talk to us about this, and if you have questions is how it -- this is how you can reach him --
e-mail your thoughts to firstname.lastname@example.org. take a step back a little bit. when you say a bank can trade money,e -- with its own where is the source? guest: they can do it from anywhere. they could siphon money from other parts of the bank to these proprietary trading desks. they can take loans actually from other parts of the bank. it is very complicated how they do it. banks are doing is maximizing big pool of money that those proprietary trading desks could use to make large bets. this is one of the big debates coming out of the crisis, how tradings retired terry -- proprietary trading have to
do with the crisis? we had the crash and the real estate bubble and the crash led to a change of events that caused banks to collapse. i wask if you look at it, covering wall street myself in new york back then, and i saw a lot of this up close. rs, at it is mye firm belief that proprietary trading did play a significant role in what happened because that led to a culture of risk- taking at these banks. even if you were not on a desk that was purely proprietary trading, you saw what those guys were doing -- how much a were making -- they were making. you had an incentive yourself to engage in riskier activities. oft is one of the intents the volcker rule, to eliminate
that culture, or tamp it down this and andminate see that banks are no longer seen as gamblers at a casino. host: it was investments and mortgage backed securities? guest: there were desks at banks debra making very large that's on mortgage-backed securities or that were linked to those mortgage-backed securities. we all heard about derivatives, and credit default swaps, and other arcane instruments that led to this domino effect that pulled these banks down. lossesere also just big by several banks purely from proprietary trading. morgan stanley lost about $10 billion from a single desk that was betting on mortgage-backed securities. they were at the center of the
crisis in late 2008. they did not laugh like lehman brothers, but if the federal government had not instituted the bailout, they probably would have, and that would have led to other collapses. investment banks allowed to be linked with commercial banks? the glass-ct called toagall, that allowed banks engage in proprietary trading. the reality is eggs have already been engaging in proprietary trading before glass-steagall was repealed. largely for what led to the crisis by many people, but i think by that point, the banks had already started engaging in these types of activities. is designed toe
be a new glass-steagall, but it is very different. it is banning the specific activity of proprietary trading, so it is more propagating -- more obligated the just separating the banks. the name comees from? guest: the former chairman of the federal reserve in the 1980's. he came up with this idea in 2009. he has deep familiarity with how that work, and he decided if you could peel this out of the banks, then you have a safer culture in wall street. several senators and congress picked that idea up. caller: good morning. the dodd frank bill
when wall street and the people that caused this problem have a major say so and it? like presence reporting to what prisoners like and don't like. does that make sense? guest: that is definitely an issue right now. there is a lot of rusher on regulators and members of congress to tone down the roles that dodd frank is implementing. write out, that is a big battle that is going on, and we are closely following it at the wall street journal. and it'svolcker rule, kind of interesting, because very recently there has been a push by several regulators to make it stronger because they started looking at what the rule and grew concerned that perhaps wall street had influenced the language a little bit too much. you have a commissioner at the and gary gensler, the
chairman of the cftc, who recently have been aggressively pushing back against the language and order to make it what many people would conclude as less wall street friendly. this is a constant back-and- forth all the time of financial regulation and financial -- and washington dc. we do not know exactly what the rule is going to say, but we will find out very soon. itt: my hope is that when comes time to vote on it, it will be strong enough. what kind of language do we need? guest: that is part of the debate. how do regulators read the language that the legislators laid out and dodd frank? they can debate endlessly about a single sentence and what it means.
what we heard about the debates and the conversations going on. i can get very arcane. i was told there was a two-hour debate over the meaning of a single word in the laws laying out the volcker rule. it is a battle, and very interesting how this is playing out, and it still remains to be seen. host: bob, from georgia, independent line. he mentioned the glass- steagall a minute ago. the financial modernization act clintonate 90's, that is totally teflon on this. he signed that into law them and this is a prime market, was less than 10% of the market in the year 2000. and then people would have you believe that the ghost of the carter administration somehow rose up in the community
redevelopment act, and worse them to take the prime up from 10% and increase exponentially after that law was signed into effect. the other problem with the deal with this whole mess is when they tried to deal with the debt, and the crash, and tried to get the government back on some sort of funding, you started to hear this argument that the downgrade to our credit was because we did not deal with our debt. the downgrade in the credit is the gridlock dealing with the debt rate these arguments that people make that right into our history where they make an alternate parallel universe where does the car demonstration and the debt -- going back to the original point that glass-
steagall in some ways led to i think that is a legitimate argument because it did it anyway unleash the bank's. if traded the so-called super bank said they were able to move aggressively into mortgage markets. they have largely stayed out of them for many years. an ongoing debate, was at the federal government, was a big banks who were responsible for the crisis? two things going on we had the real estate market, which collapsed dramatically. there were many players involved in what happened there. had beenhad banks that engaging in extremely risky activities, and had loaded up on these derivatives. those derivatives were five tied to real estate mortgage backed
securities. those imploded dramatically, and that is really what set up the explosion that we saw in late 2008. we saw many banks lose million -- many billions of dollars. i think that the designers of the volcker rule are hoping that it is going to camp down on those -- tamp down on those types of activities in the future. host: will him on the independent line. caller: good morning c-span. good morning to the american people that are watching today. we appreciate c-span for what they are doing for us, and disclosing the three branches. i would like to ask mr. patterson a very important question, that i hope he can be honest about in his response.
is if you lookh at the american people today they are having difficulty trusting. if you look at raleigh, if you look at the ethics and are going on in washington dc, you can very quickly see that there is a real problem with using a trust. here is where i see the problem. if you look way before the depression, in the 30's when the stock market crashed, it was a conglomeration all your great powers of money people. the ceos and oil, steel, and all of these other conglomerates, they were using the money and the banks, and what happened before 2008 was the republican party under bush deliberately set up a scam --
unning short r on time, what do you want our guest to address? caller: there is a little thing called whistleblowing. there's a thing called open to the public. can you just tell us if you know the certain -- for certain word, and what the -- host: leave it there. guest: i am not familiar with the -- what the callers talking 2008,a the collapse of despite of a lot of -- did spike
a lot of distrust and wall street. these are legitimate concerns. there is a lot of money from wall street pouring into washington d.c. now. we at the washington journal of and other publications try to keep track of that. thery to keep the pump -- politicians honest as much as we can. that is something that congress is currently weighing is whether to tax financial transactions. it does not have a lot of support, so i do not see that happening anytime soon. europe is a little bit different, they have actually imposed some trading taxes, which has been to the chagrin of the banks. host: peter, on the republican line/ . caller: let's get the history
state on what happened during the financial crisis. during the 1990s there was a lot of pressure by the minority groups to increase the amount of affordable housing. so the clinton administration developed the public private partnership to get banks to create more loads for low income people. that calls --was caused a mandate on fannie and freddie to purchase subprime mortgages. they had increased the mandate 110% to 55% of her juices of sub i mortgages. -- purchases of subprime mortgages. he continued that public-private partnership that clinton had , upblished the which after to 2007 and 2008, the number of
those mortgages were so great that caused the financial collapse. the government gave the green light to wall street, wall street keeps getting the lane for what happened, but it was the government that gave the people on wall street the green light to go ahead and indulge in these very risky purchases. guest: this is part of the debate that is going on. who started it? i do not know of you can really lay the blame on one side or the other. the federal government clearly played a role in not strenuously overseeing what wall street was doing in the 2000s. oversaw whatave was going on, and they did not exercise that authority whatsoever. i think you can put a lot of ,lame on the fed or not acting
and not really and truly engaging with the banks in the early 2000s, to the middle 2000s. they moved aggressively to these subprime mortgages, and loaded up. they started creating these new derivative securities that were tied to them, and that is really where you have the nexus of wall street and washington creating what turned into a toxic situation. guest: amongst the five regulators debating this, and the rule being drafted, how much input did the financial have? thanks, or anybody else -- banks , or anybody else? >> we do not really know, the rule is not out yet. been talking to regulators as much as we can. i have a feeling that there has been some influence. the banks are very concerned
that the legitimate activities of market making and other things are going to be hurt i the role -- by the rule. i think realtors have to be paying attention to those concerns, because these things will be required to keep the economy going. we do not always want to look at what wall street wants with extreme skepticism, there has to be some skepticism obviously, but sometimes they do have legitimate arguments, believe it or not. regulators have to be open to that. they also have to be very careful not to open up loopholes with the language that will allow a back door to proprietary trading. this is what chairman gensler at as cftc is concerned about far as i understand it. ouldrule, as rent, c
-- as written, could have some back doors. so how does wall street prepare as they wait for this rule took about? guest: they have been preparing, they have actually already curbed many of their proprietary trading activities. most wall street banks had desks that were specifically designed to do proprietary trading. most of those are gone. i'm not aware of any that exist anymore. the issue is that there are still parts of banks that are doing that, just not under the explicit role of proprietary trading. the top example of what we have of that is what happened to jpmorgan last year in london. they had a desk that was about to be hedging, or protecting the
securities held by the bank with other trades. one trade loses money, one gains money, that is what a hedge is. this desk, which is famously ,nown as the london whale that somewhere around a billion dollars on very complex derivative securities, and wound up losing more than $6 billion. the regulators, after looking at that trade, realize that it really was a proprietary trade that would have been or should have been banned by the volcker rule. what regulators have told us is that after the london whale came out, they have been very aggressive in trying to write language that would have banned that rule. to make sure that that would have never happened. host: richard from new york. caller: a lot of the issues that
are were going to -- that i was going to bring up have been brought up by others. the impact oft the glass-steagall, and that one of the most import things that we see here is that commercial banks and consumer banks, anyone who takes in federally insured deposits that are charted by the united states needs to act in the interest of the united states'economy and society. how do you see these changes putting us back to that focus rather than just getting in bed with the investment houses and doing whatever these folks, these people getting their greasy little paws on everybody's money? hope.: that is the that by banning these extremely risky activities that federally insured money will be safer. the other thing that the volcker
is it limits the amount of money that banks can invest in hedge funds and other risk taking enterprises. there is the hope that they will not put money in some other institution that loses it and leads to a little -- ripple effect. congress wants to tell banks that do have federally insured deposits, your role in the economy is not to use that money and use your own money to make a giant bats an order to get -- when bonuses for your traders. that is not what bank are therefore. if you want to do that, go somewhere else, where that a ctivity is ok and legitimate. i think the big question is whether banks over the years,
after it is an plummeted, is going to drift back into that risk-taking activity. egulators then going to be aggressive in enforcing the role? that remains to be seen. are they going to be really following the letter of the law, are they going to be doing as they were before the financial crisis? seeing things that they thought might be risky, but letting it slide because the banks are making the argument that it is good for their profits, for their shareholders, and therefore it is good for the u.s. economy? all of this remains to be seen. as one of the biggest experiments that regulators and lawmakers have ever done in the financial industry, so it will be fascinating to watch it play out. host: our guest is scott
patterson of the washington journal. richard on the independent line. so,er: every 15 years or our financial industry find a way to blow up some part of the u.s. economy. at the core of it is the essential on regulated greed of the people on wall street. going topoint are we see people in jail for destroying others'lives? actually deprive them of their liberty the way that they deprived other parts of the u.s. economy, you're not going to see a change. it is a cultural issue. again, this is one of the big criticism of the regulators, that they have not actually thrown any of the big ceos at the banks in jail.
i do not think that that is totally out of the realm of yet, but as get -- time goes on, it is becoming highly unlikely. jpmorgan, we talked about the london whale earlier, they also have been find a very heavily recently for engaging in fraudulent mortgage security activities. they have been fined $14 billion for that activity, and they still have criminal investigations going on into the people involved with that. it does not go as high up as to the top of the chain as people would want, i think. but one of the issues with the financial crisis is that the activities that the banks were engaged in were very complicated. were were securities that written by physicists.
the formulas behind them were way beyond the realm of comprehension of many regulators. as we started seeing all of these things blow up, i think that the enforcement officials and regulars had a lot of trouble understanding what finding ifnd really there was really anybody truly responsible for the meltdown. i think they have gotten a lot of traction on the real estate saying were mortgage fraud happen, but in parts of the blowup, they have not made much progress. host: lee, from kentucky, democrat line. you go to the bottom of the list, and say this is where the rubber meets the road. what happened to the banks who got richer?
food stamps are cut, so security was cut, and then we say why do people not have confidence and art government? if you could answer some of those, you could raise the confidence tremendously. thank you very much. guest: i do not think that those are questions i can answer. as i understand it, the food stamp program has expanded over the years, but there has been a push by republicans to cut that back. whichk of the farm bill, does include the stamp program is coming up. we'll see if there's any cuts to food stamps once that does him before lawmakers. again, the caller is expressing this widespread distrust that people throughout america now have for politicians and wall
street and the nexus of those two. these are all legitimate concerns, at a think that the volcker rule is an emblem of lawmaker's desire to rein in wall street. narrowly squeaked through congress, and yet here it is. we are seeing it come out, but the question is whether it is actually going to be effective and keep eggs from engaging in activities that have always been gravitated toward. reportedly adopting the final version of the rule, and then the two others need to approve the rule. is there a chance that this may be delayed? guest: i think that has been a concern in the past few weeks, but what we're hearing in the past few days is that it
probably is going to go ahead next week. there could be some last-minute opposition. i think there are some real hardball being played behind the scenes. about ated last week, week and a half ago, that the bank regulators who you mentioned, the occ, the fed, and the fdic, could go ahead and secove the rule without the being on board. i do not think that they can do that, because the sec seems more crucial to enforcing this rule, and they have been a lot more engaged in writing it. but we are hearing is that they a lot closer, and he likely hide -- likelihood is that they will put this through next week.
host: miriam, new york, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thing startshole 100 years ago this month, around christmas time, when the turned over our isking system, which referred to as the federal there was a -- question of there was a quorum to make it ilegal. they people coming in from out , they did not have a pot to go in, but they took over our federal, and it has been that way right from the
beginning. --hink reserve, ifederal think because of the way they are set up, they are constantly the subject of conspiracy theories. i have heard many of these over the years, and personally i do not why it -- buy it. i think it is a legitimate institution, and over the past few years they have played a significant and strenuous role in maintaining the stability of the u.s. financial system. activities that they are typically engaged in, which is adjusting interest rates, that is definitely open for debate, is that an activity we really need? havee past to use they
played a crucial role in helping to maintain the stability of the financial system and the u.s. economy. i am not intimately familiar with the founding of the fed in 1913. i know many people have questions about that, but as far as to what role they are playing right now, i think they have definitely helped. i will probably be slammed for saying that, but that is my opinion. host: john, republican line. caller: very quickly, good morning. i wonder if you have read the great deposition by the director for ronald reagan? guest: i have not gotten to that yet. caller: are you aware of the fact that the fdic and occ
regulators overlooked the fact that the banks were reducing their underwriting in order to subprime roles? guest: i think they had to be aware of that. i'm not sure how much the fdic's they arehis -- typically seen as more aggressive in regulation. the fed is keeping track of what happened. happens after the finalization of this rule? guest: the banks will see what it says, and start adapting to it. the rule is not going to be enforced for another year and a half, so we are looking at 2015
before the regulators actually say you have to follow these rules. we will see. of thecott patterson wall street peaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 3, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable doug lamalfa to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes