and was not necessarily enjoying it. i had gunter a similar transition moving at a private law firm -- i have had a similar transition working at a private law firm, looking out for my office and crying because i had just had a baby and i thought, i am losing this one for child every day. i want to do something right to feel a sense of fulfillment. i always urged young people to find out what their passion is. it is not always tied to money. do not let that be the sole objective. after the dinner i had with in 21 years ago, they told their stories. they're not even married at the time. they were engaged. they were trying to figure out how to pay student loans that because the combined debt was so high. having a president who makes college affordable because he

understands being burdened with debt -- that is important. i think it is more reflective of our country. >> he has to probably try to remain inside the bubble -- he has to retain, inside the bubble, walter was like to be part of the real world. we are looking at that with both canada is now -- i will leave that henning, cause we're -- with both candidates. i will leave that handing the because we are not talking about politics. >> i'm here in my individual capacity. >> what are some of the big- picture problems with women? i would go as far as to say, some of the women in this room, when it comes to getting from point a to point b, even something like access to capital, across the board, still a problem. are we making inroads? >> travel around the country and speak with small businesses -- the number one issue is access

to capital. another very powerful woman, head of the small business administration, she has expanded her ability to provide vital access to capital to so many small businesses. women are starting small businesses all over the country. it is an economic engine -- it is where the growth is. the president wants to make sure we are doing everything we can to help the small businesses thrive. everything karen mills is doing is to provide technical assistance to small businesses. many times, they then have a great idea. they heavy interesting business plan. but they do not now have a ticket to the next level. women and small businesses could be exporting -- we have the whole export initiative to help them open up the world market. access to capital is the number one issue. that is something the president

has made a big party. another thing we have done -- small businesses are on a shoestring budget. they go from invoice to invoice. the federal government has decided to do what we think can make it easier for businesses to do business with us. we are required to pay small businesses within 30 days. now we're doing it within 15. karen mills is going to require larger businesses to decent thing -- pass money onto their subcontractors. when you are trying to make ends meet, that makes a big difference. >> some advice for the audience -- for example, marissa mayer, the new ceo of. >> she is an amazing person. i have always been fascinated with her. she is now the ceo of yahoo.com at a terrific company. she also announced the two is pregnant. well-liked but the board -- they knew. they did not announce it until after they had selected her as ceo. i wanted to tell her,

congratulations on being a ceo, but this is her first child -- my daughter just got married, so i'm feeling a little nostalgic. there is nothing quite like it. the fact that she gets to take on these to life-changing experience is at the same time -- i said, how are we going to do it? she said, we work it out. i like that confidence. >> two good stories there -- her decision, and their decision to hire her. that has a lot of messages. i think of the women in this audience to think they have to make choices. there are many choices and sacrifices you have to make along the way. i think that that is a great example of how you can be a vibrant part of the economy and have children. it is very possible. it is not an either or any more. >> you also have to be very careful where you work. one thing we've talked about -- my theory is that you can do everything, but not necessarily at the same time. you have to figure out, what

stage of your life for you in? when my daughter was very young, i could not have a schedule with no control. i love the story about mayor daley. i was sitting in his office, looking at my watch, and he was looking at me. he finally said, what is going on? i said, the halloween parade starts and 20 minutes.

[laughter] i thought you is going to yell at me. he said, well what are you doing here? the relief i felt as i tried to get to the halloween parade was immense. it was important to me to have a boss to recognize that my child -- it was important that he except that. when i finished law school, in 1981, we were so busy trying to be just like the guys. nobody was ever talking about their families, saying they had to the to do something. when women leave to go do something, back then, even sometimes today, people go, all right, if she really committed? when men go, people say, that is so nice. give me a break. >> when you see him walking out

to go to football practice with his son said, good, you should be there. do not blink. if you have to do something, make sure you work for a boss who is good. you'll be a better employee. one thing we did with a study, when we had a workplace flexibility plan -- they concluded that workplaces that are flexible are more productive. they have less turnover. people are more loyal. it improves the productivity of the work environment if you have flexibility. the only way the environment will become flexible is that you have to speak up for yourself. >> it is always hard to see what you should do then -- when. i will say something i'm not sure where, but what the heck. i was anne marie slughter, except i made the decision to keep working.

she describes having a son at home who was 13. anyone with a 13-year-old -- i am so sorry. it has gotten better. i decided to stay working even though i was needed somewhere else. i was juggling the thought in my mind that what i'm doing here is for her, but it was a hard decision. not a popular one. her decision worked because -- her article work because he -- she had stopped. x. we will never get the long- hall got -- done. we all make different decisions. some decide to stay home and work at home. that is as good as valid and difficult.

that is as good as working. but the working part is really conflict role, if i can make up a word, it is full of conflict. also in the people for -- -- >> for high performers. being excellent and whenever she put her mind to -- there are two things that inevitably conflict. you feel like you are letting everybody down. >> if you do not make the

decision at the moment, what are you? >> my daughter is mad at me right now. thes also understand, and same note, on a different topic, there were some great stories that you told me. i am wondering if you could share them -- learning to communicate. learning to give yourself a leg up to work your -- brewster pay or your status in a company, which i do not think it is something that came comfortable to you. >> that is an important point. we started out talking about paycheck fairness.>> obviously,

you are a close friend of the president and his family's and his top advisers. what influence have you had on him in helping him evolve and recognize how important this is, in a way that no other president has? >> i am lucky that he came in in pretty good shape. i really am. his family that raised him -- it is one of the only ways you know whether or not you are being paid equally or not. >> a very noisy. >> it is ok. i think it is important we have a president fighting hard to make sure the laws are in place. you also have to be your own advocate.

women, we really do not like to be our own advocate. men do not have trouble saying how great they are as a general rule. >> he is not so sure of himself. >> the story i shared before was i had a woman a mentor who said to me when i worked for the city -- i was happy to be there. i felt like it was something bigger than myself. my mentor said to me, you know what, you are sitting in this cubicle facing an alley. you are doing work at a much more senior level. i said i do not care about the title. when he figures it out writed what makes you think you are on the radar screen. tell him you have been here over one year and you deserve a promotion.

she did not leave it at that. she came back at me. finally i go in there because i am prepared. i say this is the work i am doing and i think i should be a deputy. he listened carefully and said, ok. i was like, oh. by the way, there is an empty office because somebody just left and i think i would like to move into the front suite because he did not have women in the front suite. he said, there are all these other deputies ahead of you in mind. i said i think you need a woman up there. i took my boxes and i moved into that office. i squatted. i am not saying everybody gets a promotion when you ask for one. i am saying please be your own advocate. do not wait to be recognized. make sure you have performed.

what is the worst thing he would have said, know you are not ready. and i would have come back and another six months. if there is an empty office take it. >> absolutely. how many think if you work really hard somebody will notice and reward you for it? if the show that? you are wrong. but the handout. you have to tell them. this is what i learned it. i learned one of the best lessons. you go in there and make sure they know and do not be embarrassed about it and communicate in your best way. i tried it jon posey way and that did not work for me. communicate elegantly exactly what it was i was doing that and exact the value of brought to the table. you have to learn to do that for yourself. i urge all of you to learn to speak in front of people. get up and do what i am doing.

i am sweating bullets. i do not like doing audiences. this makes me nervous which is why i am here. >> does she look nervous? that is the whole point. >> you have to communicate effectively for yourself. nobody else will. think about how you are doing it. you can raise your hand again because i am sure it happened. all of the well razor and you are sure it happened. how many have used the words "i am sari." you are lying first of all. you're not sorry so do not do it. you have to come to the table looking directly at who you are talking to in the i am completely confident. your shoulders back and centered and the rest comes out of your mouth. do not come covered up and were rated whether the person sitting

across from you like sea. do you like me? >> i actually do. >> i know you like me. >> most apartment our respective jobs a dozen television. >> that ultimately, the most incredible friendships will come out of that. everything you get out of relationship if it starts with respect. the money thing, the negotiating thing, what ever you are doing, you are starting your own business you have to be able to establish that when you walk in the door. you have to commend it with the way you look, feel, talked, and what he said. you can do it. you have to do it. we need to step up. everything valerie is doing really does not mean anything unless we step up. >> and just to put it got under!. when i mentioned at the outset that i met the president and first lady when i was trying to recruit, the first time we met i

thought i was interviewing her. after 10 minutes and it was clear she was interviewing thing and she was asking some tough questions. she was not trying to sell herself, she wanted to make sure she was going to perform well and thrive in this environment. this was the best one for her. at the end of the interview i asked her for -- assistant -- i offered her the job on the spot. i knew he would love her. she says, let me think about it. chigoes, and talks to her fiance who says, sure. i am not sure who will have your back. are you going into this political environment would have been practicing law. let's sit down and have a meal with the person i am expecting to sit down with the. out of that meal was the beginning of a relationship. it is worth taking the time to get to know your team and to make sure your team knows he. 21 years later that was a really

good meal i had it. >> we have time for two more questions and given the time -- to put it very bluntly of this. having the president here, unlike any woman before you that i can think of in any administration, tell me about the sacrifices and the price you had to pay along the way. valerie makes it look easy. that is our job. we're not walking in the room thinking, oh, god, i have been absence 3:30 in the morning. is hard. it is not easy. >> i used to be painfully shy. you keep doing things over and over again and that is how you get better at it. there is no way i could of smoke into an audience like this when i first arena.

i am single still. i do not have a lot of other demands of my time i am trying to balance and i am really sensitive to the people on my team, men and women who do have young children. our lives are totally unpredictable. the hours are long. as i do not care which hours you worked to make sure you take care of your family responsibilities because he will be miserable and i need you at the top of your game. it is really difficult and there are times that you do miss the halloween parade because we do not have as much control as i had working for the city. you do make sacrifices. i also say this to myself every day. i grew up on the south side of chicago and i was the first lawyer -- first lawyer and my family and my parents made a lot of sacrifices for me to have a good education.

people used to talk about walking 5 miles to school. she was getting up at 4:00 in the morning. she said, this is no picnic for me either. i think part of what we shared was coming from families that valued education were the parents were willing to sacrifice of the children could do better than they did. the vision is that no matter where you are or where you come from if you work hard and if you act responsibly and everybody plays by the same rules he will get a fair shot. he wants to make sure his administration is committed to doing that. is, i have had to make tradeoffs along the way and it looks easy when you are at the first stage of the game. let's face it, we are on a high wire right now. who knows this evening. i hope you are all set -- to retain good things.

who knows what 3 words can be taken out of context. that high wire -- on the other hand, i pants myself every day for the privilege of serving our country in this rigid i pinch myself for serving our country in this environment. >> if this president does get four more years what will the council take and where will the focus be, still on the money? >> every single agency makes this a priority? i only give one concrete example where women and girls are really playing into what priorities. everybody is race to the top.

how we can set policy to create incentives for girls to go into these and important fields. that is a way a government can help support and nurture. implementation of the affordable care act is important. it is something we will continue on into the future in august. it is an important today because insurance companies will start to provide preventive care for free. that is everything from screening for any kinds of diseases, domestic violence counseling, breast feeding the and comprehends -- contraception. this is extremely important. [applause] my doctor is 26 but when she was 24 and a half between school and starting work she was on my

insurance. my mom, a senior citizen and, anybody -- anyone who has a sick child you understand when you are dealing with a sick child -- and remember the president said -- i remember she said i cannot breathe. we have a lot of children and around the country who do not have access to affordable health care and do not know pre- existing conditions will prevent them from getting the coverage they need. we are looking forward to implementing the rest of the affordable care at and in the months and years ahead. we have clean energy. the all of the above strategy continuing to invest in a science and making sure government does what is supposed to do. you have this conversation where people are sticking up for

the president. the point is that government has an important role. we celebrate entrepreneurship. this is a country where you should have the american dream to have an idea and turned into the apple of tomorrow but it does not happen without a government providing you the infrastructure that you need whether it is the roads and bridges that you take your commerce across or whether it is school to educate our children, it is an appropriate role for government. i think there are a two vision for america, one optimistic and hopeful and we should have a smart government. is not about a big government and smaller government, it is investing in a way where the private sector can thrive and grow. that has always been the american dream. we are concerned that for the

first time people are wondering of their children were be better off than they are. we are determined they will, particularly our girls. >> thank you so much. valerie jarrett to everybody. [applause] our thanks to national journal for having us. a big round of applause for everybody today. [applause] on behalf of national journal, i would like to thank google, our distinguished panel and those of us for joining us today. ford video go to nationaljournal.com/events. we will be there with our events. thank you for coming today. goodbye. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it was a bout those men and

women who are almost morbidly injured and were because of the advances that had been made in medical trauma treatment over the last 10 years, an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everybody who fought on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started off with a question, having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely maimed, would it not be better off if they were dead? do they wish there were dead? >> his 10 parked pulitzer winning series for the huffington post, david woods spoke with vets and their families as well as combat medics and nurses on the daily struggles for those severely wounded in military operations.

learn more sunday at 8:00 on cue and a. >> today marks the second anniversary of the dodd-frank roster format. on this second birthday we are joined by the financial times reporter. describe for us with the biggest impact of law has been or sort of the average household consumer over two years. guest: thank you for having me on. the biggest impact is that the consumer protection bureau. the agency solely created to protect borrowers from abuse of lenders and is the first time there has never been made agency dedicated to this purchase -- dedicated to this. there is one agency looking at everything from the credit bureaus to improving our credit scores and having their credit histories to looking at mortgage lending, credit cards, overdraft

fees under bank accounts, student loans and the rest. that is the most easy thing to identify for the household. >> that board has only been around for about a year even the the wall street reform act is two years old. >> they were in the treasury department for the first year and now they have been an independent agency. guest: they recently came down with their first major enforcement action. is that right? guest: that is correct. host: that was against capital one. basically the consumer agency found they weren't engaging in deceptive marketing practices. they ordered refunds to consumers totaling $210 million. host: your sitting in the consumer protection board, the impact for the average consumer.

what about the impact on the financial system in general. what has been the biggest impact area over two years? guest: there are to double to look at it. and look at it from the perspective of the average household. have a rose and agencies in cheering people get along products that can afford to repay. have an ability to repay this credit card and mortgages that they get. that filters up to the banks into the overall banking system where you have rules designed to make sure banks engage in less risky activities. erna as connected as they were prior to the crisis and a poll more cash aside to guard against losses. the way and make it easier for myself to think about is, you want to protect borrowers. you want to protect banks from making bad decisions and you want to protect the system so everybody has enough cash to guard against losses where if one of them were to fail it

would not impact their peers. he would make failure less likely because you have cash aside catastrophes. host: again, a reporter for the financial times covering the issues. give us a call on the democratic line at- -- the biggest rules from the banking industry perspective is how much cash they are supposed to set aside to guard against lawsuits. and the reason why it is an issue for them is the mark has

been set aside, the potential less cost the can generate. in terms of if you look at rules and requirements, there are close to 400 of them regulators are supposed to implement it. much of the law is yet to be put in force. they know it is coming so they are starting to moderate their behavior or an advance several becoming final. guesthost: host: the act itselfs a hundred 48 pages signed into law on july 21. 2010 the rules and regulation process be put into the fact and has taken 10 pages of regulations for one page of the law. as of today is 8843 pages of rules and regulations. it is only 30% complete. what is the biggest part of the

act that still has yet to come down in terms of rulemaking and regulation. >> that is a hard question to answer. there are a lot of rules that have yet to be finalized. from the industry oppose a perspective, there is some months to cover. i guess it would be how much cash that are supposed to set aside. how much they're supposed to set aside to guard against unexpected losses. it is probably the biggest remaining issue. there are all these roles regarding derivatives which are financial instruments whose value is derived from underlying things like interest rates for mortgages are what have you where these rules are coming down the pike and they have yet to be finalized. the way they affect the final lines from mortgage stanley to j.p. morgan and said the group. the most contentious would

probably be the broker role. host: explain what that is. guest: the volcker rule is this statue that tries to ban -- it tends to prohibit banks from engaging in proprietary trading. them trading for their own profit rather than their own customers. large investments in private equity firms. people pushing for a more radical reform of wall street, they want to have the banks separate their units from their retail deposits. if you take deposits and you have access to taxpayer guarantee, you should be engaged in risky activity on wall street. >folks cannot get that. this is the most contentious part of the law right now.

host: how close is the volcker role to being implemented? espy is to be complemented today. the federal reserve several weeks ago essentially told the industry that because we do not have a final rule emplace you have another two years to comply. the industry has to convince regulators they are doing their best to get ready so when the rule is final there will be in compliance. the party is still on for another two years. host: we will go to buffalo, new york where call as ready with a question on the anniversary of dodd-frank. caller: we know that regulators and investigators, many of them end up taking a very cushy,

high-paying job with wall street and banks and so forth. my question is under this new or law, is there any requirement to bill to end a lot or the proposed regulations you see coming and that would ban and the regulators or the investigators of this organization for two or 35 years pushing higher paying jobs on wall street if it is not built in there, should it be? >> to my knowledge there is nothing that attempts to restrict employment for government regulators and officials after their time has served. i know some of the agencies to have rules that essentially try to institute a cooling off period for some of the officials. if you work on a particular

issue involving a bank you cannot work for the bank until one year after year term and the government has inspired. it is essentially the same thing where a lot of agencies several some place. if somebody from the sec wants to work from goldman since -- goldman sachs tomorrow there is not much of a restriction on that activity. it is hard to say. at one. do you try to restrict an individual close the ability to gain employment? if somebody is facing a much a year it is a comfortable employment. if people are tired of working for the government and want something more exciting or something more comfortable, where do you draw the line in terms of restricting their options? that is a tough question for me to answer. to aaron working

on the independent line. caller: good morning. one of the things rigid i want to get your comments on this. you look at alan greenspan and his policies. derivatives and his view on them. you know, multiple warnings to greenspan and his crew. and then you have a meltdown. now we are in heavy regulation. you go from greenspan was a fair and then heavy regulation. i wanted to get your comments and thoughts on this. guest: it depends on how you define heavy regulation. some would argue that there was

very little regulation and enter the years leading up to the crisis. the rules that were employees for not properly enforced. there is an argument to be made since the meltdown or near meltdown of the system the regulators have taken have been an overly restrictive approach in which they convince lawmakers to add rules up on rules and give them more authority to police the financial system. it depends on your perspective. if you are previously under regulated, obviously the new regime will not work in your favor. if you are a bank that check the various banking rules and laws and the had regulators stationed in your bank and you were competing with other financial firms that were not as heavily regulated. the new regime may be a good thing because it attempts to put people on a equal playing field so nobody can skirt the rules and offer products that are

cheaper or less regulated and the centrally try to put you out of business. it depends on what constitutes heavy regulation. host: a question on twitter this morning. when not institut glass- steagall? wall street will always try to find ways around guest: it is a fair point. it was a depression-era law that forbid regular main street deposit taking banks from investment activities. for example, the best way i can describe it is, you take a bank of america. they absorbed merrill lynch. if he brought back glass- steagall, you have to cling merrill lynch offer of bank of america. the could no longer engage in wall street activity. can only take loans and

deposits. it is a fair point to ask -- it is a fair question to say whether we would need -- whether it is better to have that system and get rid of the rules for some of the current regime they are in. congress had an opportunity to do this during the dodd-frank debate in the spring of 2010. two senators shared brown from ohio. they were both pushing a provision that essentially would have forced the largest banks to let up because they were getting too big for the system over all. that provision failed. at this point i do not see congress taking this up. the banks are the size that they are. regulators hope they will strengthen time during the influx of rules and higher capital. they believe the largest institutions will shrink.

i do not know if that will happen. but you talked about congress pose a reaction to the dodd- frank bill. two here is they instituted 30% of what they called for. what has been the response from members of congress? for their people trying to stall this or repeal it? >> is, the entire republican party is trying to repeal it. i think the general consensus on the republican side of the aisle is that dodd-frank was the wrong solution for the problem that faced the financial system. we can look at it at a variety of ways. is either too much involvement in the government industry or too much regulation and a time the economy is weak. it could impede credit and lending which if anyone has tried to get a loan for small business, they know it is really hard to get a loan right now.

from critics of dodd-frank, they blame the loss saying this is making it -- making it hard to lend money. on the democratic side of the law, they look at dodd-frank not as dodd-frank but wall street reform. it is their answer to the wild times on wall street that produced the most punishing crisis or most punishing recession since the great depression. they have polling data that suggests the law is overwhelmingly popular with the average household. is overwhelmingly popular with average households. from their point of view if you think of the last few years they have the health care law and this so-called wall street reform law. that is the two biggest legislative accomplishments.

>> 8 release from chairman baucus, the head of the financial services committee and in the house on the two university of the -- anniversary of the dodd frankie act. they promised it would provide certainty to everybody from bankers and farmers to consumers. today we realize it had the opposite of fact. supporters sold it as reform but as the committee has learned from listening to witnesses it is mainstream being crushed under the 400 new rules and mandates. that causes more uncertainty for american businesses and hinders the ability to grow and create jobs. we want to show you a bit of consumer protection bureau deputy director talking a little bit about the criticism his

agency has received. [video clip] they did not supervise or enforce the law with respect to small banks. there are 15,000 credit unions within the country. our supervision authority extends to the biggest 105. second are any burden associated with abiding by regulations promulgated by the see f p d. conceptually i understand the notion. the fact of the matter is we have finalized two substantive rulemaking is since being in business for one year. one of which came -- kept employs the status quo. the other is not yet effective and indeed we have said we are

considering a means by which to provide extensions for providers. the burden argument -- host: we talked about some of the people against this. is there a chance they could be dismantled or dodd-frank to be repealed. is that on the table? >> mitt romney winning the presidency. i said absolutely. on second thought, i am not so sure. there are elements that are popular. in terms of -- there is a lot of noise about dismantling the cfbc. i think what may up and -- end up happening as they tried to weaken the authority and power and make it more subject to the

congress. taking away the funding stream. i can see that as being a more likely possibility. austin tx. go to thank you for caller: waking my question is will this prevent people from using their house like an atm machine? guest: that is a good question. i cannot think of anything that would prevent people from taking out home equity lines of credit on their house and using it like an atm machine. i know that it does make the banks think twice about lending money to people in terms that there are heightened requirements and there are more things they need to keep in mind. they have to make sure the moores have the ability to repay the loans they take out. if somebody can afford the lunch

and they can afford to take equity out on the house, i cannot think of anything that will prevent that. host: a question from twitter -- guest: i do not know to be honest. i cannot think of anything that will restrict that. dodd-frank what it does do is it potentially delete any references to credit ratings and the banking rules and laws. you could see a regime in which the so-called aaa no longer means what it does. perhaps i could see something where some kind of similar activity continues to take

place. i cannot think of anything off the top of my head. guest: how long have you been at the financial times? guest: under a year. host: were you covering before that? guest: before that i was at the center of investigative reporting. i was there for about a year and a half. host: we will go to oregon. ted, you are on. caller: good morning. i have been an observer of the downturn since 2008. i have never cared about a fight coast court or a loan. to meet cash is king. fico loan , to me cash is king. to me glass-steagall worked flawlessly for 70 years until the repeal of senator phil gramm

of texas. with this we have 2000 pages of dodd-frank which does not seem to want to be applied to wall street or the bankers or the money changers that were the architects of the downturn. i wanted to know, what is the difference between dodd-frank and glass-steagall and why we cannot bring them back. guest: that is a good question. the easiest way i can describe it is, glass-steagall at the time you could define it and look at it as a meat cleaver in which you saw out banks' access to eight tax payers safety net or guarantee. separate risky activities away from that. if you want to engage in trading or various types of other

activities on wall street would have access to the taxpayer safety net. because of that the thinking goes, you would think twice about taking extreme risks because nobody would bail you out. dodd-frank did not take that approach. they tried to limit certain activities and try to curb others and put more rules and requirements on banks to incentivize them not to take human this risks. whether it works or not, people are split. it is tough to say why lawmakers went for this approach. i do not have the answers to that. host: a couple of comments on twitter --

caller: yes, my question is, before the jobs act passed that allow them to be credited to investors, is there anything in the volcker role that addresses had funds and the form of advertising for hedge funds to accredited investors? guest: i do not think there is anything that would limit the restrictions on advertising. you are referring to the jobs at which has passed recently. overwhelmingly it was signed by presidents lot. it was thought to make it easier for businesses to raise capital. one of the provisions -- how they could advertise their funds. there is nothing that puts any

limitations on what kind of advertisements they can make. >> as i understand it with advertising that citibank was doing the cut them caught up by the consumer financial protection board, some of their credit-card advertising. guest: it was along the lines of their payment protection plans. it was essentially their marketing practices that were deemed unfair and deceptive. host: did they acknowledge wrongdoing in this case? or was the outcome? guest: they agreed to refund consumers and make them whole. they apologize for bad behavior whether they admitted fault, i do not recall. i do remember them apologizing. guest: $210 million. the interesting thing to in this action is, any consumer will

have a full refund. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask you a question. we had a caller who said phil gramm was responsible for removing the glass stiegel protection for the consumer. it turns out also bill clinton and got and frank were also involved in this. how come they are allowed to help destroy the system and allow to make laws later. i think it is really tragic. when i look at it, it is a disgrace. to me they are the people

responsible for opening the chicken coop up and they get a free pass on this. could you comment on that? guest: it is a fair criticism to raise. glass-steagall was nullified by an act of congress. the president at the time was bill clinton. some of the people who were the most ardent champions or people like larry summers to became the first -- he was the head of the national economic council and the obama white house. other people were also involved in the clinton administration back then. this did it come up a few years ago when dodd-frank was gearing up and those deliberations were happening where you had officials who had pushed to deregulate the system work in

positions of authority where they were pushing for reforms that will regulate the system. it is a fair question to raise. in terms of my opinion, people's mines change and they learn from experience is. it is hard to judge whether somebody is particularly a bowl or has any kind of credibility with respect to positions that are pushing. host: on twitter -- guest: that is a good question. i do not know to be honest. there is a fair. to be raised and which the regulators were properly enforcing the laws on the box that perhaps they could incur the worst of the activities that led to the near collapse of the financial system.

what all this be avoided? i think the administration believe so. i think they say so publicly. i do not know if i think that is the case. for those of us pushing dodd- frank after the collapse, are they satisfied or do they feel like they should have asked for more? where is chris dodd and barney frank today? guest: he is very proud of dodd- frank. he says there are some provisions he wishes he would have pushed harder for. there are others he said lawmakers got it wrong and that regulators need to -- he has since left the senate and is working for -- it is the motion

picture association i believe. he is a champion of his lot. the administration still supports it and they are still very sensitive to criticisms of dodd-frank in terms of whether it restricts access or whether it creates uncertainty or even whether it is tough enough. there are sensitive to that. they are ardent champions of the law. host: are you talking about criticisms of whether it is tough enough. she wrote in a column this past week and says that the end of that column --

bob is on the democratic line. caller: i would like the gentleman to address my question or my statement about banks going back to banking. let them do it in long-term capital gains. the day trading is a heyday with banks. it is an absolute -- if i were a banker i would be having a heyday, too. they need to put banks back to banking and let them deal in

equities and stocks. they are having a heyday with the stock market. that is a horrible result. what do you think. guest: i think the data shows, dealing in trading and equities is not necessarily by the dealer acts, it is by small firms set up to date trade and try to find price distortions. a long story short, there is an argument to be made it banks should just be banks and if you want to be an investment firm you should not have access to taxpayer subsidy or a safety net. there are people in government who feel that way. one of the members of the board of directors of the insurance corp. who prior to this was head

of the kansas city fed, he is believed for years -- he believes in a modern day glass- steagall and if you want to believe a modern street activities and want to be a player on wall street should not have access to the fed discount window nt should be able to have deposit insurance. you should be on your own. if you are a bank can have access to the safety net you should be engaged in these kinds of risky activities. you are definitely not alone in feeling this way. host: a couple of comments on our twitter feed today. -- we will go to thomas on the

independent line. caller: i have a comment. i spent over a decade as a compliance officer and banking. i am very familiar with the topic of today. we can talk all day long about, you know, capital ratios and all of that. i thought it was very interesting that dodd-frank, the one thing that was not cut off was the connection between banks and insurance companies. another thing is in regards to whether or not dodd-frank would

have prevented the crisis, a big problem with that is what was actually going on, especially in the sub prime lending. i do not think it was a secret. i remember vividly in 2003 and 2004 people were worried about fannie mae and freddie mac. the fact and they work government -- guest guest: the sorry not sure what the question is. host: a test to jump on the statement if you wanted. guest: dodd-frank does not address freddie mae and -- fannie mae and freddie mac. prior to the prices they had a

guarantee. everybody who bought stock thought it was continually go up. anybody who bought the debt assumed they would be made whole if they ever found trouble. there was no restrictions on fannie and freddie's activity. they had a lot of influence of in washington. at the time they were able to engage in whatever activities they wanted. at the end of the day, there is no exit inside. >> on the second anniversary, the boston globe notes that only 120 of the 398 regulations enumerated are in effect today. will it take another two years before we get to 398 or how long will it take for the loss to go into effect? guest: there are deadlines for a lot of roles but at the end of

the day they compose the deadlines and move past them. given how so many runs are very contentious and requires all the regulators to be on the same page and the regulators have different interests, it is not as easy to reach consensus. every will take another of years before they are in effect. guesthost: back into we did a ss on these financial agencies including the consumer financial protection bureau. you can find that on c-span.org and search our video library. we will go with it tempeh on the republican line. caller: i have a son and lot that has a dentist company. as soon as this went into effect the money frees got cut

off. are talking about any mae and freddie mac. i watched this on cnn and constantly. they kept saying the republicans wanted them to do something about fannie mae and freddie mac. senator dodd, he goes, that would be too hard. barney frank did not want it either because he wanted this. here is the thing that got them into it. the other thing is, how can they do anything about it. he got his daddy pose a job with how young is he? the vice-president has been a senator. the president does not get it. it did not know how the economy works. these are the guys in charge. just like nancy pelosi screaming about romney oppose a tax records. show as yours. she gets to be one of the first for all these other things that

go into the fact. the government we need to see, their tax records, these are the people making these laws. their staffers, when they pass they did not know what was going on in dodd-frank. host: talk about some of the criticism on dodd and mr. frank. where do i begin. with a longtime member of the senate banking committee. he was part of the group that did try to deregulate wall street and capitol. whether that was a good idea at the time or not remains to be seen. is not for me to answer. he has come under criticism by republicans to -- he was among

those ardent champions. it is a little bit unfair only because it was not just democrats supporting fannie and freddie, it was also republicans. the bush administration and the clinton administration, is, there were people who had concerns. nobody had enough juice to curb fannie and freddie. that was enough -- that was the bottom line. nobody had the power to do it. it is the bottom line. with respect to the criticism of credit, there is an argument to be made over whether or not they restrict lending. i think it may have something more to do with the general economy. as opposed to looking at rose coming down the pike, i think people need to be mindful that banks are hesitant to lend because a lot of them are in

good shape -- are not in good shape. interest rates are low. if they are going to make a loan now when interest rates rise, what kind of position will that put them in? there is a lot of different factors. >> one last comment.

that story again is in the boston globe. i want to thank you for coming in and talking about barney frank and chris dodd and their legislation. >> sunday on washington journal, a look at the u.s. role in syria. andrew tabler joins us. then the washington post political managing editor chris cillizza talks about his new book, a guide to the upcoming election. after that a round table discussion on aids in the united states at the international aids conference. we are joined by regan hofmann and dr. chris beyrer. washington journal live at 7:00

eastern on c-span. tomorrow after washington journal, join us for newsmakers with armed services committee ranking member adam smith. they will talk about sequestration, defense spending and policy toward syria. newsmakers at 10:00 eastern on c-span. this weekend that president obama and john boehner addressed the shootings in aurora, colorado. they offer their careers to those affected by the incident and thanks to the first responders. >> as many of you know on friday at least 12 people were killed when a gunman opened fire in colorado. dozens more are being treated for injuries at local hospitals. some of the victims are treated at children's hospital. we are gathering all the facts

about what happened but we know the police have one suspect in custody. the federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever is responsible to justice. we will do everything possible to ensure the safety of our people and stand by our neighbors in colorado during this difficult time. even as we have come to learn how this happened and who is responsible we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize the fellow human beings. such evil a senseless and beyond reason. while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another we do know what makes life worth living. the people we lost love and were loved it. they were mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and sisters and brothers and sons and daughters and friends and neighbors. they have hopes for the future and dreams not yet fulfilled. if there is anything to take

away from the tragedy, it is a reminder that time as fragile and it is precious. what matters in the end is not a trivial things that consume our lives, it is how we treat one another and love one another. what we do to give our lives meaning and to give our lives purpose. that is brought matters and is why we are here. i am sure many of you who are parents had the same reaction i did when you heard the news. what if it had been my doctors doing what young children enjoyed doing every day. michele and i will be fortunate enough to hug our girls tight this weekend. for those parents who may not be so fortunate, we need to embrace them and let them know we will be for them as a nation. i hope everybody takes time for prayer and reflection. for the victims of this tragedy to the people who knew them and

love them, for those who are still struggling to overcome and four victims who left publicized acts of violence that plagued them on a daily basis and to keep these americans and our careers and to the people and our prayers, may the lord bring you comfort and healing. >> hello, i am john boehner. my plan today was to share thoughts with you about the economy. life they say is what happens when you are busy making other plans. there is still too much to sort out about the tragedy in colorado. words cannot captured the horror of something so senseless so i will not try. this much i know. when confronted with evil we cannot comprehend americans pulling together and embracing our family more tightly. we joined obama in sending condolences and prayers to loved ones killed and wounded.

we thank god for the police, first responders, doctors and nurses who saved lives. at a time like this we count our blessings. we come to be reminded that the deaths also reveals the depth of our love and resolved. script tells us faith sustains us is the substance of things hoped for in the evidence of things not seen. we may not see or fathom comfort for the morning but we will stand by them and stand together as one nation, the difficult hours that lie ahead. may god bless the grieving families and yours and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you. >> watch a book tv and american history tv the weekend of august

4 and 5 as local content -- explore louisville, ky. >> a lot of the stores i seen her stores that are opened by people who are interested in having a business, not that they were with a love of books. they were business people. i think you have to have a gut attachment to books to care about them because your customers will like them. they come because they carry about books. >> watch for but tv and american history to be august 4 and 5 on c-span 2 and 3. air transportation officials testified this week on the federal aviation administration's contract to our program. the faa contracts with private

entities to use low activity control towers at airports. the faa's chief operating officer also talked about sequestration. the contract to our program could face $128 million in cuts if the sequester goes into effect and this is one hour and 48 minutes. >> the subcommittee on aviation shall come to order. today we will hear testimony on the federal aviation administration's contract program. i would like to welcome the witnesses. we all look forward to your testimony. thank you for the effort you

have made to prepare that. they account for 14% of the overall tower operations. the safety and efficiency of the program has been validated numerous times by the inspector general, the faa, and the national safety board. in 2003 the inspector general conducted a review of the cost and safety record of the contract program and found the program was just as safe as and

less costly than compared to the staff towers. more recently the inspector general has updated this audit and they can the inspector general found little difference and the safety or quality of services provided by similar faa and contract tellers. he determines contract towers at a lower number and rate of recorded state safety instances than similar faa towers. the inspector general found the contract hours provided air- traffic services to let activity airports at lower-cost then the faa could otherwise provide. he determined the average contract tower cost roughly $1.5 million less to operate than a comparable faa teller due to large lower staffing salary levels. we are talking about towers selectivity airports. it ranges from four operations

per hour to about 45 operations per hour. there are also airports with mixed use and other conditions that make it essential to have a tower to ensure safety. contract our programs is a key component of our nation's aviation system and provides vital services to communities, businesses, and travel. this program remains popular with its users. without the program many communities could not afford the use of services. contract hours are manned by highly experienced and trained professional controllers, 99% of whom are former military or faa controllers and average 20 years of experience. they retain the city oversight of contract towers and the controllers and staff. all contract controllers are certified by the faa. there are monitored on a regular basis by the agency and staffing

plans are approved by the faa. contract controllers are subject to the same rules, a medical exam requirements and training as our faa controllers. it is cost-effective, said, and well regulated. i believe today's testimony will confirm the tower program to the national airspace system. before we turn to witnesses for statements i ask unanimous consent all members have a five days to the record of the hearing. without objective so ordered. >> i thank you for calling this hearing today. i have a brief opening statement that i will enter into the record and yield my time at this point to the ranking member and full committee. >> thank you.

i also appreciate -- i look forward to hearing from your witnesses about many smaller communities. they may not otherwise have control towers. there can be little doubt whether operated by the faa or a contractor enhances safety for pilots. the faa has implemented a nationwide voluntary safety problem -- program that encourages controllers to report errors without fear. it's chines a spotlight into the dark room of errors that may occur in faa facilities with safety issues that may otherwise have remained cloaked in the darkness. however, at a city program does not apply in contract towers. peering into the dark room of errors that may occur in contract facilities, we have just a flash light that has

always been used to find out about operational errors. we know more about errors and faa facilities because the faa spotlight is bringing them out of the darkness. without an equally broad view, i think it is difficult to draw absolute comparisons about safety. i would note the department of transportation's department general observes a voluntary reporting program would ensure that errors are thoroughly reported. i understand they are encouraging their contractors to implement safety reporting programs and i look forward to hearing more about the efforts. they have also found contract towers cost less to operate and facilities because in part they are stuffed with your controllers. however the national air traffic controllers association that actually represents controllers has raised safety issues and

concerns with lean staffing levels. for example, controllers may have to stay on duty for longer and may have to multitask of a greater risk of destruction and have to work along with no backup. past accidents targets there must be enough controllers on duty to do the job safely. i am not suggesting contract hours are not as safe as facilities. we have sufficient information to make a strong comparison. contract powers have not adopted best practices that will allow us to evaluate and improve safety at these facilities. contract hours should implemented the same pro-active reporting programs implemented at faa towers so we can collect the best safety information. with that said i thank you for your hearings. i look forward to hearing today. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> thank you. we now turn to the first panel. thank you for being here. let me briefly introduce the panel. the department of transportation and a frequent testify reforests general committee. the chief operating officer of the air traffic organization of the faa, the sub minister of policy, thank you for being here. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on the contract to our program which has been in place for 30 years and stands nationwide. the program has provided service to smaller cities and airports that otherwise would not have air traffic control services and has increased the level of

safety for pilots in those communities. our prior reviews of the program had found safety and similar faa towers was comparable. the contract hours provided service at lower cost of the agency could otherwise provide. my testimony is based on the current review of the program requested by the house committee on appropriations and will focus on the safety and cost efficiency of towers as well as actions faa can take to improve oversight. over all contract hours continue to provide safe services and are supported strongly by their usage. we compare safety incidents in fiscal year 2010 at contract hours and 92 comparable to ours. we found there reported a lower number and rate of operational errors, deviations.

the periodic evaluations of air traffic compliance with the eighth -- faa directives found your training and administration the efficiencies. they are satisfied with the quality and safety of track -- traffic services. pilots described services provided as seamless. they also continue to provide cost-efficient air traffic control services with the average contract tower costing about $1.5 million less to operate than the comparable faa tower. is do it that the towers have less levels than the faa tower spirit had an average of six air traffic personnel present facility while the average of 30 comparable faa tower said an average of 16 personnel.

also, contract tower controller salaries which are based on departmental labor wage rates are lower than salaries paid to faa controllers. while the contract our program continues to provide saved cost- efficient services provided by users, there are opportunities for faa to improve oversight and strengthen program controls. first, they need to implement a voluntary safety program at contract towers. controller is currently have the air traffic safety action program, a voluntary not punitive safety reporting program that encourages controllers to report operational errors and other safety issues. implementing this will help faa's efforts to ensure one level of safety. second, faa needs to review annual labor hours to determine if contractors provide a level of service and the contract.

this is important because we have found some contract hours or not staffed according to staffing plans. in response faa required contractors to comply with an approved staffing plan that includes the total number of hours controllers will work annually. we found the affects of this is limited as the only review contractors' monthly reports, not the actual monthly hours worked by contractors. as a result faa does not validate whether services paid for have been delivered. finally faa needs to implement processes to evaluate contract hours as required by the recently enacted format. while the new risk-based oversight system allows the agency to target high risk powers, lower risk towers could go years without being evaluated. in our opinion, evaluations a contract hours are an important

factor to ensure the safe performance of this program. this concludes my statement. i would be happy to address questions from you or other members of the subcommittee. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the status of the federal aviation contract. at the outset let me introduce my colleagues, assistant administrator for policy and international affairs. her office is responsible for using faa's cost accounting data to refine the agency's cost- benefit analysis. she is happy to answer questions related to that topic. since its inception in 1982 this program has been part of the house after a a delivers safe and cost-effective air-traffic

control. there is a general consensus that the program has been successful and it has created measurable efficiencies in the system for commercial and general aviation operators. it delivers safety benefits to the traveling public. the program has grown significantly over the years. it began as a pilot program to contract services for five lower activity programs as a part of the organization strike in 1981. seven towers by 1993. and in 1994 congress provided funding for a multiyear program to convert additional faa operated lower activity towers to contract operations. the program was further expanded by including towers and airports

that never had an operated tower. today there are 250 contract towers in the program across 49 states and territories. the math is going through significant changes. the economic downturn that hit the u.s. in 2008 had a profound impact on aviation operations. there has been a decline in commercial operations of more than 13%. a decrease in overall operations by just over 23%. our forecasts do not seek levels returning to those in the near future. consequently, we need to make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety and efficiency benefits to deal with

the changing pattern of aviation activity. we appreciate that congress has spoken and consistent support of this program. it is authorized and -- some communities that did not meet required cost-benefit ratios to qualify as a fully funded contract tower and it could instead qualify for a contract tower where the -- regarding how costs are shared between the faa and the community. last year however congress included a provision that capped the amount any community could be required to pay for the operating cost of the contract to our at 20% of the total cost of the towers operation regardless of the cost-benefit ratio. this will impact the cost

associated with this program. in light to the economic realities, the ability to maximize resources is extremely important. while it is generally recognized the contract program is both cost-efficient and extremely safe, the faa is always investigating ways to operate what it manages more cost effectively by reviewing and adjusting as necessary operating hours and deploying a system enhancements. for example, we welcome opportunities to save the incorporate best practices from the contract to our program into faa operations. let me turn to the faa to how they plan to refine the cost- benefit analysis that will be applied to the contract to our program. we continue to use the same basic model for the current cost/benefit work while updating

and put including traffic changes, a provision to the department of transportation valuation for reporting injuries and data from the maturing cost accounting system. we are discussing the approach to incorporating the new affirmation with the tower association to ensure a faa is considering all factors in its calculations of individual towers. the faa is determined not to make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed discussion with interested parties. finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a well-rounded approach. the faa's aviation association is conducting a study to compare safety data between airports with staffed contract hours, whether federal or contract, and airports are unstaffed. this information will provide them with information about

future investment and air- traffic control facilities and risk-management. we also need to make sure the program as well integrated into our next endeavors. how we manage their traffic in these technology and how we organize the facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring the technologies into the system. we understand taking a static view of equipment and services will not deliver the system -- with the traveling public needs in order to adapt the dynamic circumstances. as the technologies the marriage, the needs including those of the towers may change in order to take the safety opportunities. faa is the guardian that is envied around the world. we remain committed to the contract program as an important component of how we deliver city and efficiency.

while fiscal realities play a role in aviation investment, the faa will not tolerate any degradation and safety and we recognize congress and the traveling public share that view. thank you for the opportunity to speak for you. i am happy to answer any questions you might have at this time. >> thank you both. i think we have a number of questions. i would like to ask a few. you talk about being a dynamic system switching to digital and next-generation type technology that can provide more opportunities for dynamism in the system. there was a problem a few months ago that made it into the national media about periods at

the faa towers where people were sleeping in this kind of thing. i think the solution was to man up and put many two people in instead of one. is that a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem? do you have a system of monitoring the movements at airports? which airports could be switched to a virtual tower approach? certain low use periods so that something can handle the movements. sometimes staffing levels need to change when the number of flights change. if there are no flights for six or eight hours and somebody is on the job you cannot blame them for staying up the whole time a third of scheduled flights in and that. could you talk about that as

something that might be addressed? >> certainly. first of all, we took each of the incidents external seriously. and so what if there might have been a more cost-effective solution, that was not our first concern. our first concern was to do what we believed was absolutely essential for safety. and so we staff reached our with a level of operations that would require us to keep it open during the mid shift with two people. the same change was made with federal contract towers. they had a sufficient level of operations that we would have kept them open during a major shift of they had been federally operated towers. we are looking at the various next gen technologies with the possibility of changing fundamentally the way we do air- traffic control and all of our activities. one of the beauties is it is largely geographic in different. and so we have opportunities to

do our surveillance allocations that we previously would not have been able to employ. and so we do not have those online yet but we are looking at them -- small towers and all of our facilities. >> there are flights into airports where there are no tower's upper writing that are handled by -- as i understand it on a common basis. >> it is not extreme, but it does occur. >> you are talking about new technology and changes. your analysis of it. is the agency prepared to work collaborative with airports stakeholders as you analyze the opportunities and challenges of these new technologies? >> yes, very much so.

we cannot do this without collaboration in the industry and the actual development of these innovations. we certainly have to have industry participation. we will have their participation in the utilization of the innovations. >> ok. two more questions. you mentioned in your testimony about your new -- the cost- benefit analysis. are you going to be applying that to faa towers as well as contract hours or is that inappropriate? what are you thinking -- what is your thinking on that? >> we will be applying the same cost benefit analysis to faa managed towers. we are doing that without any

expectation that we will then convert any of the towers to federal contract towers. we want to apply the best cost of permission we have to all facilities under our responsibility. >> i and other members of the committee have been working with stakeholder advisory groups and hopefully people an faa on bird dogging and encouraging the movement on deploying next gen. the one area that we have been hearing about this a number of airports have been the -- airlines have been trading pilots to new procedures and so on. manuals have not been approved. this is not directly air-traffic control by your controllers are being trained as well. all this money is being used and is not being effectively utilized. if there is a snake in the

system -- i am eager to ask you if you are willing to help work with the airlines and others who are investing in this system to put it in place. a lot of costs for everybody concerned. what you have identified an extremely critical issue and what we are very focused on right now. i think what you are referencing is that we have a set of procedures call the controllers and but that very much governs the interplay between controllers and air space users. that document, specifically a 50-year-old document. we are in the process at the participation of the airline and obviously with the controllers of beginning to update that document so that it will support the way we currently do air traffic control and the way we will do in our future because it has been an impediment. we are aware of that and we are

fixing it. >> do you have a timeline on that? are you trying to updated over all? exactly how is that -- >> it has overall ability to the system. are focusing on the -- they have historically a produced the most waiver requests from the facilities that we consequently granted. are provisions that could stand to be changed. we are intending to have been changed within three years. >> thank you. to follow up on the comments we had a meeting yesterday in the chairman's office with stakeholders. we were told that one particular airport the handbook was not even available for the controller. i know that staff -- there is a meeting that will take place on friday at the staff level. and then we intend to follow up

with questions for the agency where we will be present to talk about those things and to try to let out a plan. there is a difference between reporting safety incidents at faa staff towers versus the contract hours, particularly with the use of the not punitive system put in place of the faa. i wonder if you might elaborate on the differences between reporting system use versus the contract towers. >> certainly. we currently have a voluntary reporting system that goes by the acronym -- in has to the principal features to it that make it very effective. one is that it is voluntary and therefore it eliminates some of

the stigma that would ordinarily be associated with an error. secondly, it provides for a non punitive features so that when a controller reports appropriately under it, the controller does not do so with the year that to the disclosure he or she is making. that has resulted in an abundant increase in the quality of information that we have about incidents and consequently about the risks which produced the incidents. we do not have the system in place now. we are working with our precontract heirs who are in turn in the negotiations with their unions. the implementation of an asset program is a multi-party investment. we expect all of them -- they will in fact implement the

towers because it is so important to have to have all of them in traffic. >> as i understand the agency is concerned that the incidence and contract towers may not be fully reported today as they are at faa staff towers because of the voluntary not punitive program? does the agency have concerns that incidents taking place at towers may not be fully reported? >> as i testified before we are unable to differentiate between an increase in incidents are greater number of incidents and an increase in reporting. that applies to our own system and applies to the disparity in federal contract hours. as the report said, since we do not have it there very well may be a lower level of reporting in

the contract hours. that is one reason we have to have that. >> is there a deadline to try to implement a system? >> there is not a deadline. it is my understanding the discussions are going well. the principal work to be done is actually between the contractors and the bargaining units for their employees. the principle negotiation is not between the faa and the contractor, but we have told the contractors this is very important and it will become a requirement. >> can you go beyond telling the contractors it is very important and put it in as a part of the contract that you are awarding to a contractor to

provide the circus's? >> will come to that. >> house and will you come to that? >> cannot have an answer for you. >> the contracts that elected the three contractors, how often -- is it an open ended contractor do they have specific terms when they expire? >> they have terms, but i do not recall the expiration date of the current set of contracts. >> the reason i ask is if you're going to modify an existing contract or if you're going to put additional requirements and the contract, can you do that or can you wait until it terminates? >> i would need to review the contract to give you a confident answer. >> it would ask the you do that. >> we will do that. >> thank you. in your testimony you indicated that additional oversight could help ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting of safety at contract hours.

you elaborate on that statement? >> thank you. yes, we do believe that increased a more comprehensive reporting which shed more light on the safety of towers. it was not made part of the current contract that was initiated in 2010 and will expire in 2014. it certainly would have been inappropriate to build into the current set of contracts because the congress in my office have long been supporters of voluntary safety disclosure reporting programs for air carriers and in the air traffic control world. i fully concur when he says that it should be viewed -- we trust that the data will ultimately show as a strong boost to the greater visibility

that we have an to the operational error world. currently we do not have that at contract towers. i would also note in the past -- we testified before the house and the senate that not only the advent -- the initiation of automated traffic analysis and review programs to catch all the errors automatically have been significant to better report and safety analysis. we also do not have that either. >> either have recommended to the faa that they have those provisions in the contract? >> it is part of our testimony today. part of our testimony is based on a review we are doing for the appropriations committee. that will be one of our recommendations. >> has the office recommended that in the past? could be brought that up to the

faa prior to them lifting the last contract in 2010? >> i do not believe we did. our most recent review was finished in 2003. i doubt we picked up on that and have had a chance to evaluate. >> the reason i am directing this line of questioning is, we ought to be on the same system here. we should not have apples and oranges here when we are reporting safety incidents. we ought to have the same system in place. i would encourage you to go back and take a look at when the contracts expire if you have the ability and the existing to modify the contracts and report back to the committee. with that -- >> we will do that sir. >> thank you. >> to buy. i want to pick up on the same

line of questioning. i know you mentioned earlier there is a lower error rate. is it your perspective it is an anomaly that the reporting is different and is not an apples to apples comparison or is it your thought there is an actual lower error rate in the contract hours? >> we do not know. what we need is better data. that will drive our conclusions. page three of the statement we submitted to the committee for today's hearing notes both the absolute number of safety incidents and the rate per 1 million operations contracting contract hours. it appears from data that contract towers may be safer to use that term. i would not advance that conclusion based on the data. primarily because what we have learned in looking at the trade, world once it comes into play, once automated analysis and

reporting programs come into play, the number of reported operational errors comes up. whether that is in federal reporting or more errors being committed, we do not know. faa does not have a solid base line on which to make that judgment. we are going to get there. we cannot get their right now because at least when it comes to contract hours, we do not even have that system in place. >> $1 billion cheaper to do a contract tower. -- $1.5 million cheaper to do a contract tower. sinter another is a lower error rate. on the other areas we have talked about or that you have discovered, the things faa can learn from the functioning of the contract towers. a lot of staffing functionality or whatever it may be. what do we learn in the other direction as well? >> 60 we would conclude as

comparable period when it comes to cost, there is almost a $1.5 million cost difference between contract and faa towers. the primary driver of that is the staffing level and the pay the contract controllers get. the staffing levels are determined for contractors by virtue of their staffing plan that they submit to the agency for approval. those staffing plans can be structured as to avoid some of the drivers that may apply to the faa rule. for instance the requirement that controllers not spend longer than two hours on the requirement for the practice that managers and supervisors not be used in an faa tower to control traffic. they can be used in a contract hour to control traffic. benefits for a federal faa

controller may be more generous in terms of medical leave and they are in a contract role. that permits contract controllers to stay on the job a little bit longer. those are the kinds of things that permit contract controllers to contract towers to have lower staffing towers than the pay. ideas on efficiency -- can they move the other direction or do you think structurally it is not possible for them to move the other direction? and they say, this is working. there are at the correct level. of the city issues are -- there is a structural issue or is in no way for them to move in that direction? >> i do want to say there is a way for good ideas to move. we are properly motivated people are involved. i will note when we come up with factors that must be

considered, collective bargaining agreements and so forth, different densities and so forth, the framing requirements for their controllers and on the job training that some of their controllers must engage in as well. all of that drives staffing levels. we acknowledge the validity. >> there are different types of towers and different quantities. i understand that you're there are inherent differences. there are areas that we can go the other direction. process was, how would that occur? who would carry the water in say let's look at how to do this. is there an office he would know of that would make that evaluation and say, this is sufficient? how do we get these efficiencies over here? >> i know that within the air traffic organization, he has resources whose mission is to make comparisons and recommendations? >> my time has expired.

mr. griswold respond. >> it is my responsibility to clean efficiencies from whatever source including federal contract towers. i will say that the opportunity for more efficient air traffic management and the larger facilities dwarfs the ability of us to move federal contract to our practices into our sized facilities. we are looking at all of them because there is an opportunity. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. at the expense of beating a dead horse, let me ask you, when comparing error rates between contract towers and faa towers, you refer reported errors. would you agree there is a difference between reported errors and actual errors that

occurred, particularly given that faa's reporting program is not apply in contract hours. i have one contract tower in the district i represent, louisburg, west virginia with the exception of higher income people flying in, there is not much activity at that airport. >> there may be a difference. we do not know. i do have the ever mission we presented to the committee in terms of an inference i think i could make based on the experience of my office and looking at operational areas as reported in the on route. an automated programs were put in place, numbers increased. we have focused on that. we are trying to determine if it

is an increase in reported numbers or errors committed. we do not know because there is not a good baseline. with time we will get to the baseline and we will be able to determine. we do not have that yet either. it is fairly new at the towers. it is not even in place at the contract hours. i cannot say. >> what is the basis for your recommendation in your written testimony where you state that an adoption of voluntary safety programs among the contract towers would improve the safety oversight of these facilities? >> we agree with faa and we have reached the conclusion independently that the non punitive nature of it as it is in the carrier safety action program is the strong inducement to better reporting. we would strongly recommend to faa that that be included for

contract towers if not by modifying the contract and buy when contracts come up for renewal in 2014. " you have been asked this question before but, it is in regard to your testimony back in april when you stated you are confident to reporting the incidents has increased thanks to the faa's new safety reporting program. my follow up would be what is the faa doing to ensure that contract towers have fallen to report a requirement program? >> we are going to utilize the contractual opportunities that we have. if we have the ability and our current contract to require it, we will do so. otherwise when we come to a contract for renewal we will require that our contractors effectuate the program.

.

>> a number of people -- we have seen in the rebels give up on international intervention. the key dynamic in the last six months is that they have decided they have to go it alone, one way or the other. they have done that. they have created networks. turkish intelligence could be more involved than we are

getting. there is some evidence and talk of that. they have managed to secure weapons. they have a regular flow of weapons. they do not seem to have money issues. the trajectory is that it will take down the government or forced into an enclave. intervention -- if we are talking about bonding -- bombing, taking a defenses, do we want to be responsible for what would likely be the ensuing massacre of the minority? what will fill that power vacuum? at this point, there is a vacuum that is part of the total vacuum. after the government falls, that could be even more serious. i do not necessarily see an

intervention that prevents the state's lessening the death toll by taking away the government's ability to use these heavy weapons. other than that, i think that all of the dynamics we are talking about still exist, even if we are involved or not. you have to figure at the issue of what we just saw in libya -- what happens when the dump a bunch of weapons on a country? where do these weapons go? do they fall into the hands of its lummis fighters who are then going to attack our allies in jordan -- islamist fighters who will then go and attack our allies in jordan? i do not think there is a clean

intervention in any sense of the word. increasingly, the rebels say that they do not want nato. we are going to do it ourselves, and we will be better off because we have done it ourselves. >> an interesting issue -- how you define victory in this situation? if you define it as sending assad to the country or killing him, if that is enough for you, then perhaps they can do it with weapons as clashes intensified and forced assad to leave or go to an allied country. if that is the definition of victory -- but if the definition of victory is creating a stable country, that is difficult. that requires a lot of management. if that is the definition of victory, we cannot simply watch and say that this is acceptable, that what is happening is what should be happening.

many have said that the opposition needs a strategy. we do not want an entire military campaign. some weapons will go to the revolutionaries -- we do not even want a lot of sophisticated weaponry, because we do not want a situation where militias are armed. air strikes and weapons -- when you allow these people to go into areas of forces, your alleviating all the concerns. the problem about this plan is not that is not realistic or practical -- not that it is not realistic or practical.

we're dealing with the international community -- it is not as if the conflict will resolve itself in the right way. we do not have to worry about islamists being in power - we have a wish list that is very long, but you are not willing to do anything to make these wishes come true. we -- the intervention that is needed is one that is doable. if you have enacted it months ago, it would have been even easier.

but there is no other way around it. if you want stability to the outcome in syria. but if you do not care about stability, if you can live with chaos, then all of you have to do is watch and enjoy the show. >> let's turn it over to the audience. people will introduce themselves to be -- please identify yourselves to the audience. in the front row. >> turkey's position seems ambivalent and perhaps incoherent. as we speak to turkish diplomats off the record, as i have, you come to the conclusion that turkey's position is ambivalent and perhaps into europe. i would love for you to try to explain what their calculation is -- anybody who i know. i know you look at this, you have a lot of experience in turkey. >> i think ambivalent is exactly it.

it is the kurdish issue -- that is one important situation. there is a point of view in the turkish establishment that what is happening is a normal process. it is part of their identity issue. on the other hand, turkey wants to be sure that any instability do not fall into turkish areas. that is behind the agreement that happened between the turkish factions -- they then want to ensure that the kurds control all the borders. they are very pragmatic about the kurdish question. they are friendly.

they want to have a stable partner in iraq -- and we will see a similar scenario happened in the kurdish enclave across the borders in syria. for them, as long as they can get that out, and perhaps some reports, whether it is intelligence or other things to ensure that they can take it to assad, they then are happy with the outcome. i do not think it and even what airstrikes, especially if they are in the obama positions. >> i think that there is the component that in turkey, the mindset has permeated that the arabs are just bad news.

they are an enervating factor, the weak part of the ottoman empire, a destruction to turkish foreign policy, which is to stay away from them. they have tried to change that, but it is still there. it is in the body politic. certainly inside of the military. needless to say, erdogan and the turkish military do not have a very positive relationship. at on the troubles between the civilian government and the turkish military, which is under siege, the military has no desire whatsoever to go in there. the arabs are always bad news. it is extremely difficult to get the turks to go there. you can get the turkish intelligence to do a little bit more -- that is doable. but again, this is not their bailiwick. the turks have not had a pleasant experience is when they have tried to project power. the invasion of cyprus was a logistical mess.

they really do not want to go there. but it is still conceivable, if you look at where turkish rhetoric and actions are now, backdated 12 months, it is quite a big difference. change is still possible. >> i'm from palestine. i want to remain on the regional idea. one country is jordan -- i assume that jordan is worried about chaos and fragmentation. what can jordan do? what can they to be expected to do? the second is qatar. we think of other arab countries pushing an islamic agenda.

what are they doing in syria? what is the country doing there? >> for me, i would like very much to see jordan be more hospitable to rest -- for refugees, to begin with. there are problems in this area. i do not think they will results soon. i know that jordanian officials would not comment on that, but that is an issue they should be involved with. they are not doing a good job at this stage. the other thing that is happening is that they seem to be not realizing that they can easily drive themselves into a conflict across the border. there were reports about clashes between jordanians and the syrian armies on the border.

i would not discount that. it happened across the border with turkey, with jordan -- loyalists militias are trying to stop the ball from fleeing. the jordanians mike find themselves in a position -- might find themselves in a position. it is likely that some scenario like that will happen. i think that the jordanians will begin to think about ways to actually reach out across the border and begin working on trying to show a relationship of their own, like the turkish have treated they can develop partners among the resistance. they can make sure it stays stable and friendly.

that is one thing the jordanians can do. that is a important step, that they adopt that mind-set. your second question on the islamization, it is happening, but i would not say it is the trend. it is a trend among trends. it is not necessarily coming from the government, but individuals are doing it. this is problematic in itself, and the brotherhood, as far as the movement is concerned, it is among the islamic factions we are seeing. we're talking about islamization -- the brotherhood has been enshrined.

they have repeatedly talk about special minority rights. this is a good thing, i think. we still need more guarantees, we have to talk about the actual structure of the state and how things should be, and not blindly trust anyone. they still have a distance to go. about those groups -- they then are movements you can actually interact with. the brotherhood is there. the other movements are new and becoming aware of themselves. one movement has grown in syria -- they already have groups in different parts, in aleppo. they have concerns with cooperating with other groups. they are calling openly for an islamic state. even other groups are not calling openly for an islamic state.

the membership is limited, but it could be problematic on a local level. on the national scene, they are all minorities. every movement, every group, every region -- they are all minorities right now. it is a regional identity. there are political divisions. because of the fragmentation that is happening now, having a group like that in a damascus, that has created a problem. they control this area -- nobody is saying, nobody is saying the transition will be easy, but at the same time i do not envision that the south and the north will fight against each other, and especially if there is an international will to somehow

manage the situation and empower the dialogue between these groups. >> i could speak to jordan. i think jordan has slowly been pushed into becoming more supportive. i think the majority of jordanians are very supportive of the revolution. i spent a couple of weeks in march trying to get across the jordanian border with a group of fighters who were being funded by individual donations. they then were not able to get across in march. the jordanians were not letting anything across. they were occasionally engaging in skirmishes with the syrian

military, apparently to cover refugees who were fleeing. the jordanians would, apparently, engage syrian soldiers who were attacking people fleeing into jordan. as far as refugees, there are a lot of iraqis to feel -- who feel that for the first year of the conflict they were openly supportive. when we have reached the point where people are fleeing with virtually nothing because they then are forced to, the jordanians have quietly sort of shut down their borders and, hopefully, activist will be able to convince them otherwise, but iraqis seems to have a very very little success in doing so. jordanian to speak to -- politicians and businessmen,

they largely study tipping point for jordan being when the trade route was no longer viable in syria. when they then were losing more economically by not coming out against assad then they were gaining. as syria continues to sort of fragment and fall apart, we will probably reach that point with jordan. now, it does seem that they are at least allowing fighters to cross the border again. with weapons. >> thank you. we will take other questions. >> i am a journalist. when you are in beirut, dec people like hezbollah -- do you see people like hezbollah? >> i am wondering, refugee camps in turkey are being used as a staging ground for rebel

groups. i'm wondering if the panel had any recommendation as to how we can protect the integrity of those camps as places for protection and humanitarian aid, rather than active of variables in conflict? >> one from the back? >> i have heard some concerns about command and control capabilities of the rebel groups in trying to coordinate 3 youtube -- through youtube, and it has been remarkably fortunate in the past few weeks. has that changed, and what is your impression of their command and control capabilities? >> do you want me to take all

three? >> the first in the last. >> as far as hezbollah, in the border areas, when you are crossing from lebanon to syria, there is talk about hezbollah fighters patrolling those areas. but inside the route, inside tripoli, lebanon in general, as a foreign correspondent i feel safe.

there were some reports four months ago, five months ago, from the syrian embassy threatening journalists. but nothing like that seems to have happened since then. as far as preventing the camps from becoming a staging ground, their art turkish soldiers stationed at these camps searching bags, but i think that as long as you allow syrians to come in, they will be planning and using these areas. the turks are patrolling the border very heavily. to some extent, there is such a volume that it is very hard to do anything about it without dedicating a lot more manpower. to making sure the scams are not used that way. the third question -- >> about command and control. >> the rebels have at least three tv stations that broadcast on satellite. one of them is very slickly produced and has obviously a lot of support. we do see -- skype is becoming a major tool of the revolutionaries. they have satellite internet in a lot of places.

they use skype to coordinate a lot of things. they use infrastructure out of necessity, out of necessity it has gotten better. they are coalescing under command in larger areas. we are seeing them unite whatever larger groups of rebels, sometimes loosely, sometimes somewhat strictly. that is just a natural development. >> it is also correct to say that the cia and the turks have delivered ined radio equipment. >> there was a question on refugees. in turkey. most of -- all of the refugee camps exist in this area. only one camps has military offices. they to take part in planning their.

the other camps, as far as i know, only civilians are there. they have a lot of limitation on the movements anyway. they cannot really take an active part in operations. talking about areas outside the camps, these artificial refugees who are not in the camps -- i see a problem for the -- i do not see a problem for the integrity of the thames. -- camps. >> i did not say operational centers. it is much less formal. there are areas around the towns where there are lots of refugees. a young man sharing information, how to build bombs, do this, do that. it turned into kind of a joke.

journalists were not allowed to go into the camp. we were looking and there were turkish soldiers stationed at the entrance of the camp and, if you hundred meters away, a big hole in the kantor people were coming and going freely. that sort of -- a hole in the tent where people were coming and going freely. that steve is an idea of where -- how tight it really was -- and gave us an idea of how tight security really was. >> a country that has not been mentioned -- israel. in the context of potential use, or the loosening of chemical weapons, what you think the israeli calculations are now? do you see any possibility in which the israelis would have to get involved? >> i do not think the israelis have any great desire to get involved. obviously, chemical weapons and biological weapons would be a significant factor for them, and they would try to watch

that very closely. i do not know what the israeli network is in sight of syria. i expect it is very haphazard. their ability to correct -- collect nontechnical intelligence is probably somewhat limited. i do not see -- i suppose that they might decide to limit weaponry. -- provide weaponry. there are certain groups that would take that weaponry. but i suspect that they see their role as to be in reserve. >> ok. we have reached 11:00. please, everybody join me in thanking the panelists. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] begich gibson >> -- >> today on "washington journal." the "the washington post" managing editor, chris cillizza, talks about his novel, which is a guide to the new election. after that, the 19th annual conference begins this week. we are joined by region hoffman and international aids society president-elect, dr. chris. "washington journal", live at

7:00 eastern on c-span. today, after washington journal, and join us for newsmakers with adam smith. he will talk about sequestration, defense spending, and u.s. policy toward syria. "newsmakers" at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. >> it watch booktv the weekend of august 4 and fifth as c- span's local content of vehicles explore the heritage and literary culture of louisville ky, home of the louisville slugger and its largest independent bookstore. >> a lot of stores that i have seen it failed our stores are opened by people were interested in having a businesses. but but not the the had an attachment to books or a love of books.

their business people. i think you really have to have a kind of gut attachment to books to care enough about them because your customers are like that. >> walked for the book atv on august 5. >> yesterday marked the second anniversary of the dodd frank law. last week, congress held a number of hearings on the legislation when it comes to derivatives and the consumer financial protection bureau. the deputy director, raj date, testified. this is an hour and a half.

>> i would like to call the committee to order. we to expect a series of votes between 4:30 and a 5:00. it is my intention to complete this hearing by the time those votes are called. i'm sure your coat it with that. -- i am sure you are ok with that. this afternoon's hearing is the second installment. today, we're joined by mr. raj date. this is not his first visit here. i appreciate him coming back. he is the deputy director of the consumer protection bureau.

he will provide members of the subcommittee with an update on the operations of the cfpb since the transfer last july. many of my colleagues would like to qualify as the number of times that have testified as congressional oversight. according to the website, this'll be the 24th time that a representative from the agency has testified before the house of the senate. justice second comparison, how does that compare? the treasury and federal reserve have each paired 45 times. the ftse has appeared 26. testifying in hearings is a central function of a federal regulatory agency, but i think that it does not necessarily equate to congress having necessary oversight. republicans have offered proposals for greater oversight on an agency that will be spending hundreds of millions of

dollars each year without a shared mission of protecting consumers. i urge the senate and administration to accept our good-faith offering to put these reforms into place. i'm interested to hear mr. date's thoughts. the first as the credit card ability to pay rule hearing that we have. the cfpb inherited that from the federal reserve. last fall, the federal reserve finalize roles to determine a bars ability to pay. when drafted, and i think it is borne out in the actions, the federal reserve clearly misinterpreted the statute and required all borrowers to provide proof of an individual income, even though the statute clearly intended that required only to apply to underage students seeking credit. we are hearing more and more anecdotal stories across the

nation about stay-at-home spouses been denied credit because they do not have an individual income. this is a clear example that regulation has gone wrong. i have asked the cfpb to fix this. i am assured we will have a resolution by the summer. we are working on a legislative solution to restore parity in case that does not come about. last week we heard from many witnesses about the importance of clarity. again, the actions of this agency could determine that availability credit for borrowers across this nation. i would urge the cfpb as i did. we need to ensure this rule does not overly restrict credit for consumers and increase the cost of credit for borrowers.

again, i would like to thank you for appearing before the committee. going forward, we must assure that the strike the appropriate balance between protecting consumers and assuring there is significant access to credit. are like to recognize the ranking member, the gentle lady from new york. >> i thank you for calling this hearing. thank you for pointing out this is the 24th time that they have testified before congress, often times before this committee. it is always with good news of how we're protecting consumers and moving forth. just yesterday, i would like unanimous consent to place a new record a report that shows it hit a financial institution with their first-ever penalty.

it took form in the area of credit card reform. i was pleased to see the bureau is being serious about cracking down on anti-competitive practices. just yesterday announced its first enforcement action to consumers with lower credit scores. these were uncovered during the supervision process. a critical of story we gave to the cfpb. it will put $140 million back into the pockets of 2 million cardholders. this case in point is why the bureau is necessary and i applaud the work that was done in the months leading up to this announcement. we need to put this in perspective. not only is the 24th hearing, but there have been numerous bills and amendments that have

been introduced to either got, slowdown, blocker, or slow down the financial reforms including the repeal of this bill. there have been numerous legal countess to dismantle cfpb as well as other important aspects of financial reform. the very agencies to of been tasked with implementing financial return -- financial reform are facing drastic budget cuts. they're looking at a 12% cut. if my colleagues get their way, that would amount to three under 20 million cuts. it pales in comparison. the 19 trillion dollars in -- the $19 trillion that americans lost. becausenow in poverty

of the financial crisis. the cfpb is a pillar of the financial reforms. financial products is its first and only mission. that was not the case before financial reform where protection was housed in multiple different agencies whose chief mission was safety and science. too often consumer protection was a secondary thought or not even thought about at all. now the system has changed. it is safer, stronger, more transparent. there are new tools to monitor and mitigate threats to consumers and to protect them. these reforms are helping to build a sound foundation to report economic growth.

we do see signs of that growth. we have added 3.8 million jobs. business lending has increased 15% according to the labor of bureau statistics after these reforms went into place. cfpb has leveled the playing field. i, for one, do not really understand why there is such great opposition to it. the know before you 0 is really very important. -- before you owe is really important. highlighting rates and eliminating rhetoric. i really do not understand why some of my colleagues are opposed to it, for giving consumers disclosures that will clearly state their obligations under their mortgages, their interest rates, their payments.

other important information. for all the talk of limits, none of that has materialized. for all the talk of unacceptable agencies and unaccountable and not transparent, the cfpb has been unprecedented in its transparency. the have been forthcoming with members of the industry and consumers. i look forward to hearing the report today. i look forward to than strengthening the overall economy and consumers understanding to enable them to better manage their own financial life and their own risk. i think the gentle lady for calling this hearing. i look for to the gentleman's testimony. >> two minutes. >> here we are, one year after

the cfpb took over responsibility. many questions still remain on the potential of future actions. as you know, i've been following the developments ever since being elected to congress. my focus has been targeted at how the actions impact small financial institutions. almost daily i continue to hear from community banks and credit unions. the increasing regulatory regime that these institutions are now facing. many of them tell us it is not making their life easier. they say it is making their life far more difficult. we had an discussion recently were the chairman -- and we had many hearings in this room as well.

this hearing will hopefully highlight some of those concerns. today we will be discussing the impact of dodd frank on consumer choice and access to credit. i want to make sure we do not restrict financial institutions from providing consumers with the power to choose the products that they want and make the most sense for them. also like them to ask for unanimous consent and offer a letter into the record that addresses the regulatory burden and issues that are rising. >> without objection. thank you. >> of 4 to his testimony. >> thank you. hank you, wire -- tah

mr. date, for coming out to speak about the progress. we're once again evaluating the cfpb and marking the two-year anniversary of the wall street reform and consumer protection act. i still hear my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about the so- called strangling red-tape that the law has supposedly imposed. the national journal on monday published a story entitled few laws from gop on dodd frank. by next month, the cfpb will have testified before congress 26 times during their 18-month existence. i would like to point out that according to a poll commissioned by the aarp and other organizations taken earlier this month, most

americans disagree with the negative characterization of the cfpb that my republican colleagues have embraced. 2/3 of voters and 69% of independence agree that the cfpb is a necessary institution. i repeat, that it is necessary to have it. no wonder they feel this way. while the big banks are complaining of the red tape, we are being inundated with new scandals and evidence of malfeasance by the major financial institutions. starting with the jpmorgan exotic derivatives loss that may reach up to $9 billion, there have been several instances which reflect poorly on the financial-services industry and debate for more oversight and protection for our consumers.

just yesterday, the cfpb announce its forced -- its first enforcement action towards capital one which will have to refund $140 million to 2 million consumers and paid a $25 million penalty. it has also recently come to light that the hsbc bank has been looking the other way while terrorist organizations and drug cartels launder money with their institution. last week, the chairman of the financial group admitted to 20 years of embezzlement. of course, we're all appalled at the london interbank offered rate, or libor scandal which may have involved up to 16 banks in a conspiracy to report false

rates. it boggles my mind. if only for self preservation, that these institutions continue to obeyed the law and pointed the cfpb. in closing, i want to say that rather than continually trying to hamper the work, we should be encouraging the bureau and other regulators to hamper the wall street banks from evading these laws and putting our economy at risk. we do need a consumer financial protection bureau and the recent scandals on the underscore this point. with that, i yield back. the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, madam chair. the number in keeping in mind today is 1100. that is how many pages the cfpb 's recently disclosed rule

regarding mortgage disclosures is. even though the disclosures themselves will be less than 10 pages in length. many of us have expressed skepticism over the arguments that the creation of another accountable -- unaccountable bureaucracy will somehow reduce red tape and compliance costs and make financial decisions easier to understand for consumers. the typical length rule seems to have validated our worst fears about this agency. the cfpb has shown us the path they have chosen to take. i am afraid the outlook is not good. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. scott for three minutes. >> in addition to forming, the dodd frank act also has risk retention requirement for lenders that i think we really

need to take a good look at as we discussed this today. the risk requirement for lenders that securitized as what they originate. there is a requirement that lenders must retain 5% of the credit risk of any asset in order to encourage a sound of lending practices. the law currently has residential mortgages, or what fromeferred to as qrm's this risk retention. as many of you may know, the co- sponsor which was -- which would simply amend the calculation, and dodd frank, determining whether a mortgage loan is complying with the requirement. this is necessary. our legislation would exclude so-called points and fees as

long as there are reasonable. know whatterested to mr. date's view on the legislation might be and how it might affect consumer access to credit in order to obtain mortgages. it seems to me that any expansion of charges, to be included in the finance charge, could very-well cause vast numbers of mortgages to fail. to meet the standards required of a qualified mortgage. obviously, if the cfpb counts all originations entitled charges as the points and fees, that a huge part of the mortgage loan market in my state of georgia and elsewhere will not meet the requirement to be a qualified mortgage. lenders will not be able to make the loan, and nor will there be a negative impact if the fees

are included. it could be that by expanding the range of charges that must be included in the finance charge, it could make it almost nearly impossible for the average consumer to obtain a qualified mortgage. so, i would like for us to look at this and did your opinion on that as we move forward. >> thank you. that concludes our opening statement. i would like to welcome mr. date, mr. raj date to our committee. he is the -- i already said you are. the deputy director of the cfpb, welcome. >> chairman capito, ranking member maloney, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again to discuss the work of the consumer financial protection bureau. i'd like to talk to you today

about how the cfpb is fulfilling its mission to help consumer finance markets actually work -- for american families, for financial services firms, and for the economy as a whole. as we look to the one-year anniversary, i'm glad to have the opportunity to discuss the important work we are doing. consumer protection act in crisis since the great depression. before dodd-frank, and enforcing the various different federal agencies. cfpb -- congress equipped to the cfpb with a number of tools. we have been using these tools to offer tangible by to american consumers. in addition to supervising the country's biggest banks, we've also done our supervision of nonbanks in markets. residential mortgages and the lending. we announced the addition of

credit reporting agencies. many of these non-baked products and services have never been before supervised at the federal level. these are important changes for consumers. yesterday, we resolve our first enforcement action. our team identified deceptive practices used by the vendors to pressure and mislead customers into paying for at-on products. yesterday's consent order requires them to refund $140 million and to pay an additional fine. other work that we have been up to, helping students to better understand the financial options. in most of what we do, we have had the benefit of a ongoing

dialogue. we are working with one of the largest credit unions in the country to figure out if shorter--- shorter, more important could lead to better understanding. given what american consumers have gone through since 2007, market reforms of the top of the agenda. we are working towards restoring trust across the mortgage business system. over the next six months, we will be proposing the rules to address problems in refinancing a home. markets do not work if both parties to understand what they're getting into. with our new loan estimate form, we are sent no more. -- we are saying, "no more."

we are simplifying those forms, too. the idea is for them to understand the price and obligations for everyone involved. when it comes to closing on the market, the bureau is proposing rules that would require lenders to propose the rules at the closing table. there would have time to review the loan terms and ask questions or anything that does not seem right. we're also tried to put an end to mortgages that lead to mortgages to fail. the results were disastrous. not only for consumers, but for the housing market, for investors, and for the broader economy. by the end of the year, we require lenders to make a good- day estimate that it requires them to pay their loans. finally, when it comes to paying for a mortgage, we are

considering common sense rules. this should provide better information about how much is owed every month. in the end, we want to craft a sensible rules through the market. we also want to be mindful of just how fragile the risk seems today. throughout all of our efforts, we want to minimize compliance burden. again, thank you for inviting me back. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i would like to say in reference to the comment that you made, and whether you recommend that you have never once in a statement monthly, and get to that. i get to that from my own lender every month. is probably a good business practices. i'm sure you already know, but i

brought up two rules. our committee spoke about the state-at-home spouse. i hope you're moving as quickly as she said he would be towards a resolution of this. >> i did not have that much to add with the ability to repay the rule and how the federal reserve pays for its regulation and may have the unintended consequence you discuss. the associate director discuss our approach to it. that remains our approach, which removes from the anecdotal evidence today to a more systematic understanding of the magnitude of the problem. it is trajectory, and how to think about solutions that might be able to move forward with.

she talked but the end of summer been a good point in time. that remains our plan. >> and the go ahead and finish. my understanding was that this is a real problem. in a former state-at-home spouse myself. i understand how important it is for folks or stay at home to raise their families. my understanding is that the resolution of this issue was going to be reached at the end of the summer. i would encourage you to keep moving forward quickly on this. it is extremely important to these families that we have a resolution to this sooner than later. that was the crux of what she said when she was here. we had a -- a bright line is extremely important.

i have an article here from the wall street journal yesterday. the new markets disclosures are a bust. i don't agree with some of what he is saying here. i looked at them carried it looks fine to me. i think that -- it does not bother me seemingly as much as a bothersome, but it does say that the unintended consequences, and they did discuss this in the hearing last week. it would be a tightening of credit. if you cannot get a qualified mortgage, you are out of the game. nobody is going to read a mortgage that is not a qualified mortgage. it needs to be brought and have the right lines in terms of the legal protection. are you concerned about getting the safe harbor on this? what is your position on that? >> thank you for raising the set

of reforms around mortgages. it is at the top of our policy agenda for a reason. it is the one we have the most impact on. the ability to repay with respect to mortgages -- i will point out that it is difficult to find a lot of dissenting voices about the fact that bright lines the matter. at the time of regionalization, to provide something irrebuttable or not in some way, the ability to repay has been met. that is not especially helpful if no one knows if it is a qualified mortgage. the have made a very similar arguments.

there are related issues with respect to the degree. the recently reopened to get more perspectives on. i know that your letter and thank you for it. it takes a point of view on that. i would characterize the point of view in that letter as being quite so late within the spectrum of the wide diversity litigation risk. we're trying to move forward on the timetable. >> i would also bring up and question you on this article that was written the wall street journal, we have heard this in our office. habitat for humanity and other nonprofits to try to get nonqualified borrows to be able to be in an home. what equity, those kinds of things. i would hope that would be taken into consideration.

these really valuable programs to move forward. i guess my other question, my final question, i do not have time for a final question. miguel come back afterwards. >> thank you. are like to add my voice with concern on the stay-at-home moms. that was not my intention when i offered the bill to roll back the rights of women. just on my own calls, but i hear in my district, this has been quite a challenge. i look forward to my report and i hope i could make accommodations in line with the spirit of the law. this is something i support for hardly. many people, or some people on the other side of the aisle, have criticized the cfpb claim

it has a regulatory burden on smaller institutions and businesses. but i do know that in the financial reform, we made a requirement during the rule- making progress. can you report on how this process is working, and the unfortunate, in your data driven research, has there been any type of a burden in any way? also, some have claimed that it has insured the end of free checking. would you agree with that statement? or would you give your analysis of that particular complaint, shall we say? one of the authors of dodd frank work on a conference committee. i feel this is a centerpiece