tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 23, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
here. >> thank you. i came here with, interested in oil more than anything else. there was a time when we said we've got to produce more oil, to reduce our dependence on imported oil from the middle east because of the chaos. i'm wondering now today, aaa does this daily, gasoline price deal and to date average the country is $1.99. i'm wondering what is the impact on the world economy and on those here at home of the almost unprecedented drop in oil prices? ..
policy world in the 1970s and 80s, the notion that the allele prices and gasoline prices would be bad for the economy is something i find hard to embrace. there's no question it's hard right now the u.s. is a producer in many parts of the country and the parts that focus on allele production -- oil production. the lower prices actually is like a tax cut that lowers the cost of individuals and businesses to do the business. around the world of error conditions depending whether you are a producer or a consumer. there are more consumers and producers and low oil prices actually are something of a boost to global demand. at the same time it causes a lot of uncertainty in the economies of countries that are oil producers.
to redouble our commitment and redevelop the commitments for the moderated energy costs even when things change driving prices up. the reason for the price being down now as viewed by different analysts. some view it as being a shortage of demand and some view it as being in excess of supply there are more producers in the world now and more energy and oil in the market and we need a stronger global economy.
all the work we do with the all of the above strategy remains important to. in the infrastructure program in my lifetime from a tragic vantage point, but when the price of oil drops and the drop in the price at the pump impacts the revenue that we have historically in the highway transportation bills. so at a time when our infrastructure is hemorrhaging all over the country, the money that is being made available for the state tax in federal tax on oil is so low. it's for the highway trust fund.
it's a way to bring one-time money into the next several years. that's the thing we should make progress on even this year. >> mr. mr. is recognized for five minutes. around the extraordinary measures to strengthen the amount of time before we reached the debt as you know it was $350 billion i believe you are able were able to shift around in your department from bringing the accounts into incredible power shifting and variances from the workers pensions and the like but it is remarkable how the transparency is required in those extraordinary measures and so we offer an amendment that passed unanimously on the
floor that would just require the department of treasury to articulate publicly what extraordinary measures you intend to use and the possibility to those measures and how long to put an estimate out before it would extend our effort before we have reached it. we've always informed the congress as we used to the measures so there has been transparency. >> after the fact you reported transparency but no one in the public -- >> it is contemporaneous. >> and you haven't given a date on when that will be. >> you don't always know precisely because it depends on the cash flow.
that's why we operate with something as large. >> you're not trying to be controversial. it's not required by law that you do it. we do it whether it is required or not. to increase in the economy for no good purpose we do have something to control. >> i don't think that they the like the extreme measures that we are going to do them the public ought to know when we are going to do and how much it is going to cost and how long it is going to extend. hopefully we can reach the agreement and it is a commonsense measure we should put forward. i would like to return to the question of having the technical capacity to prioritize the debt and how far your staff has pursued it.
you said before the committee can enough to put words in your mouth that you've articulated for at least a year that you have the technical capacity. >> i don't remember the date. >> so you've said that for a while. >> i also set up a technical capacity doesn't actually need to convert between the -- comfort that we need. >> i just might suggest it is irresponsible to not explore a plan for what you can do under your technical capacity so i guess i'm just asking you this, have you instructed your staff and argue working through what it looks like in the real world is your team looked like.
we don't have that ability over the whole federal payment system ultimately, you end up only would end up only learning if you cross that threshold and if the president made the decision to pay those bills. i don't recall what the nature of the form of the analysis was. unless we agree the debt limit should just go away we are going to continue to have one is still a possibility that the debt limit to be breached and as you said you have the technical capacity to do something about it we ought to do more than heavy tabletop discussion we ought to have an analysis without would look like so that both the president and congress
can see. >> the people who are corresponding don't have the ability to make the decision only the president can make the decision. >> only now we don't have the information to make the decision. >> we did in 2011. now if you ask in the technical capacity i would say yes or is in the tabletop exercise it might work and it might not work. are you in the habit of making a big decision for the treasury on the tabletop analysis? >> most decisions are not the avoidable decisions for this. this would be a self-inflicted wound. there is no reason to ever have this tested. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you mr. secretary. i have no intention of coming over this morning. i know that you are a big boy and you can take care of yourself.
i made a huge mistake i turned the tv on, i was watching the hearing and honestly i was a little bit embarrassed and angry. i thought i would come over here and do two things. one of the first things i heard was a big concern about the deficit and the debt that apparently you are personally responsible for all of it and i'm pretty impressed by the power and incredible presence. but nobody mentioned anything about the bush tax cuts that were totally unnecessary. nobody mentioned the tools that one of which was unnecessary and all that we spend in iraq without paying for it, no one mentioned their items or the recession or or the vote at this house took late last year to increase the deficit by almost $2 trillion. >> 100% of them.
64% on the other side of the aisle voted for the omnibus. no people saying i share the blame of this terrible thing. so i don't mind. i don't like the deficit or dance like anybody else. it's all the blame on one individual. that's number one. to be vertically honest i've had differences with you. i just wanted to take the last three minutes of my time and offer the opportunity to do one of two things. you could take three minutes and take a deep breath, put your
feet up and relax and i'm not trying to get you out of the zone. i'm perfectly fine to sit here and leave my blackberry for the next two and a half minutes. >> thank you congressman. i think if you look at the fiscal pathway for the last two decades i spent as much of my time as anyone else trying to reach a responsible policy. when i was there at director we had a bipartisan basis to reach the agreement and then save the surplus, not spend it. you described what happened in the years after and it created a big problem. we spend that surplus and then we had a recession that put us into a deficit and then we we have to had to spend to get out of the recession and we are now at a place we are doing a lot better. the economy is growing but we are not at a place where i would
say we are grinding of the economy down by trying to reach the balance prematurely would be a good thing to do. i think that with the conversation we had about infrastructure in some of the back and forth this morning illustrates that there are pressing needs in this country to get our economy and the people of the country where they need to be. so i would hope we can have the kind of bipartisan discussion about this policy over the next 20 to 30 years to get us where we need to be. over the next ten years we have gone from a skyrocketing deficit and debt that was crossing through 100% of gdp to a stable situation we've reduced it from ten to two and a half and we stabilize the debt. for somebody who has the testimony in the clinton administration projecting paying off the national debt, i wish that a lot of the things that have been afterwards that squandered the debt that hasn't happened but we don't get back to change that.
and it would be a terrible thing for this country if we accepted the myth that somehow the last few years have been anything but an improvement from a dramatic improvement on the fiscal position. >> i can fill 40 seconds but i think i will stop. >> i am contemplating what i'm going to do with my last 26 seconds. and now we are done. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you mr. chairman and my friendrom massachusetts, i was waiting for the offer with the
excess time. secretary i would like to go a slightly different direction and i know rhetorically our site focuses on what i believe is the crushing debt that is coming and the other side look how much better the world is but can we spend a couple of minutes just sort of looking at the headwind here in the united states and around the world? its saying the unfunded liability is over 100% of gdp. i'm looking at an environment where it is now a couple of days ago they were back under 2% of gdp.
14 years left in the social security fund, 56 months in the social security disability. we know we need economic growth to cover these. how much do you focus on in the debt management of what is happening because of the lack of economic growth and other things , this is our future. even the previous conversations about should we be selling long-term bonds would argue modeling? how much are you looking at this too precious?
>> leaned over the last 50 years that the baby boom would retire roughly now. >> in the social security reforms that have been a very effective because they reflect the way that you work on a bipartisan basis for what goes into the trust fund and comes out of the trust fund. at a 2.7% of gdp the social security trust fund is gone in 14 years. >> the thing that's important to remember is the ongoing revenue in the social security still continues to fund the vote of the benefit. the social security goes negative and the tax revenue and i think interest revenue. >> the point i'm making is the revenue goes negative but we
will continue to be affordable to social security for the ongoing expenses and the gap. >> they have $2.8 trillion into the burned through that at the same time they pay 3.1% interest and tax revenue but also when i look at public and private pension issues i wonder the scale of these things. >> having spent 1983 to fix social security i had hoped that five or six years ago we would have been able to have the kind of conversation about that kind of a bipartisan approach. it didn't happen. i think that we are in better shape because the position is improved.
>> i know that is our script but that's not true. our modeling just a couple of years ago we were not expecting this level of the gdp growth. a couple of years ago we would be a four, 4.3 now today i'm being told this quarter we are at 1.9. >> let's collectively have a discussion. >> there is no question that stronger gdp growth and stronger economic growth will help us deal with an awful lot of challenges including funding social security and private pensions. if you look where we were seven years ago and where we are now. >> it may be stronger than some years but it's crashing down upon us. >> if i told you 56 months on the social security disability and we should just pretend things are fine.
>> i'm not disagreeing. i don't think it is a crisis for today. >> i need to yield back. send me the information from your team on what you are doing to deal with this. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you mr. chairman. and to the ranking member as well. welcome mr. secretary good to see you again. together we saw mr. kirkpatrick working basically in the middle east and north africa and my colleagues for central america in the not-too-distant future. in north africa and the middle east.
in and the crime enforcement network and also. and in several countries we work with the treasury attaches that are part of the u.s. embassies in those countries. all of those countries the level of cooperation. he may be retired now but he is very instrumental in setting up some of these financial intelligence units within these countries to push back on money laundering and terrorist financing. he handled and had a big portfolio and a big region he
would hop from country to country to help us to adopt anti-money laundering statutes just basic stuff. know your customer helping the local banks prevent terrorist groups from using thlegitimate financial system to spread terror. it's ironic today that we've got ice is taking isis taking credit for the attacks in brussels and our thoughts and prayers are with them this afternoon but is there a way to amplify what the treasury is that the treasury is doing and is there a way to i'm not saying you need 192 in every country around the globe but there are problem areas where you could use more help.
they can educate the foreign central banks and they do a great job informing our embassies at large in terms of what role they could be playing to shut off the financial system to these terrorist groups. >> i couldn't be more proud of the work that our offices to the treasury attaches to the office of technical assistance to. they are the leaders of the world on this and what they need is well equipped partners around the world. i think that the financial attaches are our eyes and ears around the world and we could use more of them but what we really need to do this get people into countries to provide technical assistance and that is more of a function then it is a
treasury function. the leading providers of assistance from around the world to build up a capabilities are ourselves, the imf. we work closely with all three. we are one of the three. we work closely with the other two. we met in december in the un and i chaired a meeting at the security security council of the security council the first time finance ministers in history that in the security council and we had a unanimous resolution to designate the same treatment of al qaeda is given which meant that even the intermediaries are subject to sanction and part of that message was the standards to be put in place for the world to come together to provide technical support to build in the kind of capabilities you describe. the intelligence apparatus is not as developed and they have a
comfort level with some of the surveillance that is making it impossible for them to see some of the things going on. we have information that we provide to countries like france and belgium to help them monitor and track. we will work on the stabilities. >> these capable of these. >> if they need more resources i think it's important we get more bang out of the buck than anybody else. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. >> secretary, i just wanted to talk about trade. when there is a level global playing field, the workers of the economy when on the tpp inode to share the concern is you said that the data
localization provisions are a trade barrier, pure and simple. and as you know it allows the companies to transfer the data across t borders and to be protected from the localization directives. however, electronic payments into the financial services sector are excluded from the data localization and you talked about the possibility of having some kind of a site agreement. where are we now do you think that the deal is possible on this? >> what i said is that the data localization is a barrier in free trade and we've imposed it vigorously where it's no more of
an excuse to put a farm in the country and create jobs or to make it more expensive for the international competition. in the area of the financial services there are two competing goods. one is to prevent the kind of nontariff barrier for being put in effect into theaters to make sure the regulators have access to what they need and when they need it. the reason that this is so hard is that there are legitimate concerns for the regulators. what i've been doing is working with our regulators to have them work through and understand where how going forward we might be able to address this. >> i tried to be careful that there is limited room. >> about in terms of the agreement you did raise that issue we need to see demonstrable progress on this issue and i stand ready to help i know my colleagues do as well so i think that it's a prerequisite to get this issue
solved in a credible way. what we go to my question here in july you testified that the banks will not be able to be able to clear up the dollars through new york or hold the their relationships with u.s. financial institutions or enter into finance agreement. iran will continue to be in the largest financial market and i have received reports from the administration that it's providing access to the u.s. financial system. so, are these reports which contradicts your previous testimony, and is the administration planning to ease the restrictions on the access to the banks specifically are you considering permitting the banks in the clear transactions in the dollars with u.s. banks.
if there is the judgment in a country of particular concern for its abuses of religious freedom as a primary money laundering concern is is an explicit recognition that any financial transaction with iran in u.s. dollars risks supporting the regime's illicit activities and the international community agrees. iran remains on the task force on money laundering.
we will continue to do that. >> because the argument was that the need to stop building its ballistic missiles but just tested. >> we have continued to be clear that we do not consider -- >> so we will not give them access -- >> the question, we are continuing to look at tally comply with the joint comprehensive plan of action to make sure that iran gets released under the nuclear portion while we put pressure on iran on these other issues. >> but remember the basic commitment that was given to us in congress. the iranian banks will not be able to clear u.s. dollars through new york. that's the commitment, and they are still in violation of ballistic missiles come on support for terrorism. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.
>> thank you, mr. secretary. often when you come here and ask about contentious issues, ask you to break up the big banks. now that is something about tpp that wasn't entirely favorable. this hearing has been contentious i'm going to devote my five minutes to things that will will not be quite -- were reduced to 30 seconds of silence to rest. these will be the least contentious issues you deal with today. because they basically involve working with you on a few issues that will never be on the front page of the newspaper, a least not a newspaper this side. ripped tax treaties of hundreds of countries around the world, or at least hundreds is not right. scores of countries around the world. we devote a substantial amount of money to trying to achieve our international development goals. and so we can always provide forced to our armenia.
we can also achieve those goals by having a tax treaty. now we are currently negotiating a treaty dealing with tax enforcement, but the gold standard of tax treaties is your basic tax treaty on double taxation. the armenian embassy tells me they're willing to start with our basic framework and negotiate a tax treaty. they've negotiated a tax treaty with canada. you see your department working toward a tax treaty with armenian? >> the primary purpose for a bilateral tax treaty is to avoid double taxation. we are not aware of a double taxation problem in armenia. >> i would retreat, we have a chicken and egg circumstance. you don't get the business investment because you don't
have a tax treaty but you don't need the tax treaty because you don't have the business investment. given that this congress has provided well over a billion dollars of aid to armenia, it would seem that having one member of your staff work on this for a while to achieve the same objectives -- >> i appreciate that and to negotiate a backstreet is quite labor intensive. to look at things, we have been looking at comments, happy to follow up. >> okay. the next issue relates to the porter ranch ghastly. biggest gas leak in history. 5000 of my constituents have left their home. and this is something i told yu that i would be asking you about that section 139, what we have is people live in hotels at the expense of the gas company and now they are told you may be taxed on the money being paid for that hotel.
you can't live in your home because of the gas leak. now, the good news is congress passed section 139 c. three which says that you can avoid this travesty because gross income doesn't include payments for the living off-site. if it results from any other event which is determined by the secretary to be catastrophic in nature, and i wonder if you could work with me toward making a fair determination that the largest gas leak in history which displays 5000 families for months meets the standard? >> thank you for bringing this to our attention. i wasn't aware that intel than. our staff has been talking to your staff and has reached out to the relevant parties. they haven't completed the analysis yet but we understand the timeliness of this given
that the tax season. we will continue to work on it. >> i look forward to working with you. i would hope that you would direct your staff to lean in the direction of fairness. i a former tax lawyer myself. i know that a very strong argument could be made on this, and we have a similar issue, not one that's as quite as pressing but we have a drought in southern california. and this is the most environmental administration in history, and people are being told that if they accept the payment, not even the payment. is the local water utility pays for the cost or part of the costcostof ripping out their lad replacing it with cactus or replacing it with rocks or something else that uses less water, that they could be having to pay an income tax on what they're doing to help the community. i hope that you could direct
your staff, again not to change the law, but to lean in and environmental direction. >> that i was not only with but we will follow up. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new hampshire. >> very quickly i want to follow-up on what the gentleman from california was talking about relative to tpp. you said last week in a subcommittee vote because of the principle decision that localization in general is b, you are working to see if there's a way to thread the needle. i understand not necessarily -- >> the other half was the our real prudential concerns and we have to balance. >> can you quickly tell you what a site agreement may look like? >> i can't tell you right now. if i knew where this was headed i would be happy to say so. i think the challenge we have is the prudential regulator's feel that they need to be certain that they can get access to what they need when they need it.
unfortunately, during the financial crisis was an incident, a major institution, they were denied access in a timely way and industry with both isis management and resolution. the question is how to make sure they get what they need while -- >> i understand that. relative to teach it. u.s. financial institutions as both -- ttip. have asked for this particular area. i understand you including are working on ttip, correct? >> we continue to work on ttip and we think it's important financial markets opened up in the course of the ttip negotiations. >> in general as chair of fsoc i'm sure you know market participants spent a lot of significant time in proprietary investment strategies and that differences exist on the 2012 report of the council of inspectors general on financial oversight. can you tell me how fsoc is addressing the differences that exist on of fsoc wide basis to
ensure federal agency members are properly safeguarded information? >> i think each of the regulators has an obligation to protect information that's within their area. want the challenges we have is that to do the systemic review that fsoc is charged with requires sharing information in an appropriate way. what we do is we limit the data and we make it so that each of the parties can be certain that they are complying with the responsibilities that they have to protect -- >> to that end would you provide our committee with a brief policy and procedures outline, what fsoc regulars are doing? >> i'm happy to follow-up afterwards and find out exactly what you're looking for. >> can you commit to something abiding commit to something about it too shows what the policies and procedures are for regulators? >> i'm not sure that i'm the right one to address each of the regulators. >> as chairman of fsoc -- >> let me follow up with you.
each regulator speaks to its own statutory requirement. >> i appreciate your willingness to follow. if we could put up a slide, it brings up another concern that some of my colleagues have brought up already and that's doctor the production. five a slide that shows the financial services committee requested information from treasury on a plan to renovate their least office building. 288 days have passed since we heard from this manner to come back to july 2015. second example, thursday, september 17th, about six months ago to the day i or undersecretary intensified during the monitor policy and trade subcommittee. i submitted questions for the record. up a six month ago. i still have not received a response. i have those items here. can i ask when i can expect to get a response and why the delay? >> i'm happy to take that back. there was a june 9 letter i
understood requesting information and august 25 response we are treasury informed the committee the report by the inspector general for the federal reserve board found of the work authorization related to the renovation was finalized after cfpb director was appointed. at which point -- >> i'm not sure they address the specific issues in the four letters. that being said the september 17 request that i've issued six months ago still has not. can you follow-up speak with happy to follow-up. >> in my last few seconds, i want to move to economy. you are where the president's budget includes a deficit of almost 800 billion at the tender into the budget window? >> i'm familiar with the president's budget, yes. >> and are you aware that the gross federal debt under the president's budget increases almost 8 trillion from 19-point for, to 27-point for in 2026? >> yes, but i'm also with a gdp
growth in a percentage of gdp would stabilize the deficit and -- >> my understanding is the president's budget, never exceeds 2.6%, corrective? >> i don't remember the exact decimal number that it's the right range. >> thank you. i've run out of time so i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, i'd like to return if i made to the actual subject of the sharing. the capital outflows ichina are not in excess of $1 trillion to you. the international institute of international finance estimated outflows in january alone about $113 billion. when you have $1 trillion of capital flight and detained to endorse economy, it seems this effect alone is more than enough explanation for the slowdown in economic growth in china. would you agree it's a major consumer? >> i'm not sure how much would contribute to the capital flight
to the slower growth or the slower growth to the capital flight that i think there has been capital moving out of china. some of it is to repay foreign debt, some of it is leading the country. it's hard to know exactly where the line is and there are strongest down to our data on the subject in a lot of the analysis i've read. book, i think china is a serious economic challenge. it has to go through this enormous the transition from an in touch with economy, and an et driven economy to a consumer driven more marketed driven economy. the faster they establish confidence that that transition is underway at that they will stick to it i think the faster they will see progress. >> the other structural problem i think they have to have is that basically a pile of wealth at the very top which is a universal problem actually in developing economies. i believe this $1000 of capital flight consists of wealthy
chinese point of money out of china. often to spend that money and economically unproductive assets like empty apartments in manhattan or vancouver or you name it. it seems like when the wealthy in china break their social compact to reinvested productivity in their own country and instead invest and less productive assets offshore, that it lowers the only chinese economic growth but economic growth throughout the world, when productive assets making of factories are replaced by investments of the rich. actually if we look in the mirror, this is sort of a universal behavior of the wealthy at least throughout the world, that they tend to invest conservatively and that means low return on investment. i was wondering if, don't you agree that this behavior, universal behavior of the wealthy people, to move their
money offshore and invest less productive assets is a major contributor to the economic slowdown in the world? >> there's no question but that both wealthy individuals and firms have a lot of cash, and it could be a lot more investment. i think the question is why is it not more investment being done? i think a lot that it gets to a sense of concern that global growth is weak and demand is weak. >> demand is weak because of the wealth distribution. there's no shortage of consumers that would buy stuff in china if they hav had the money to do so. >> look, i think in china there is no question but the right policy is to give the nsumer in china more resources to one of the things that consume as china's going to need this confidence that there's a safety net. they don't have a social safety net we have.
people feel the only way they can take care of the future is by saving. unfortunately, the people who do more risky investment are some of the small savers. when china has a volatile stock market, oftentimes it's small investors who are highly leveraged which is a dangerous thing. they got a lot of things they need to fix. i think that the question of the kind of course direction of the economy comes first. they've got to make the transition to more consumer driven more market oriented economy. that means the consumer is going to be central. they need to build a better safety net so the consumer feels free to spend. they do have wealth and income distribution issues and corruption issues that they need to akin to. i would say we have some income distribution issues we need to get into as well. >> when you say strengthening the safety net you're talking about effectively taxing the wealthy elites in china to provide -- >> whether it's taxing the elites or --
>> effectively. >> corporations pay dividends to support them. there's a variety of ways china's tax system is a complicated one. i'm not -- >> i guess that was the main thrust of my question. i think this is a major effect that's underappreciated, the crosstalk between wealth distribution of offshore capital flows i think has become a major macroeconomic factor that has to be factored in. thank you. my time is up. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. >> how are you doing, mr. secretary? >> were going back and forth. >> so the president is in cuba this week, and first president in 90 years to visit. have you been involved in the discussions about normalizing relations and trade with cuba? >> yeah. >> so the president stated in these ever that he would like to go to cuba winners progress in
liberty and freedom and the possibility of ordinary cubans. what progress did we make since december that's changed the president so he could go? >> congressman, the purpose of the president -- >> i didn't ask about. the purpose. he made the comment, and you were in the discussions. i would just like to note what progress cuba has made since december in freedom, liberty, and the possibilities for ordinary cubans? >> the purpose of the changes that we've made is to open -- >> okay, that's not my question, i apologize. i don't mean to cut you off. i've got five minutes spent i do have answered your question if i can get beyond the first few words. i'm happy to answer at your leisure. spent i'm waiting. go ahead. >> one of the things that we're
going to be doing is opening communication lines, telecommunications, bringing computers d people to people contact. that is going to contribute to an environment that's very different than what we've seen over the last 50 years that hasn't worked. i'm not suggesting that cuba is changing instantaneously. ion't think the president -- >> the president suggested the need to change and they didn't change. i mean, i don't think so. if we pursue this normalization, do you think that treaty obligations between the two should take place, like the extradition of fugitives, 70 fugitives? one guy killed a new mexico cop back in 1971. a guy named charlie hill, has been living a life of freedom down there. the would you hope we get to see mitchell back in new mexico and to see if he is guilty or not? >> i'm going to have to defer to my colleagues who have expertise on things like extradition.
>> you don't have an opinion about compex things like extradition and enforcement of rule of law o with you don't hae opinions about -- >> i do have, we have seen in the last 50 years the policy of embargo and cutting cube office do nothing to improve it. i certainly am hopeful the policy change would put in place will lead to the kinds of changes i think we all want to see in cuba. >> judging from the president, castro's comments today, doesn't look like it's moving that way very fast. he says you get asked me this many questions. it's a laug laugh really. you know mr. cohen, david cohen? >> yes, i do. >> he was here in november 2014. we had a fairly energetic discussion about the funding of places and you allude to that earlier in the conversation today. you said it's hard to get in there to blow up -- referring to blowing up oil. what does that mean it's hard to get in there? >> we've gotten pretty good at it actually. we've targeted points of real vulnerability, particularly the
tanker trucks that move oil in the country -- >> you know i just read? so when he was are you said they're getting $1 million a day. so now than that's $365 billion a year. now then in december, december of 2015 its 500. and that report talks about trucks hitting in the line to get oil filled up and they wait months. months in line to get one drop of oil, and our airplanes are flying overhead. meanwhile, they are sitting down. it online is five kilometers long, and so what exactly does it mean that we are being successful at interrupting? because it doesn't, if the rabbit is going up, keep in mind the price of oil in 2014 was at 70 at the time he testified. so 70 down to 30, and they are doubling their revenues. it doesn't sound like we are being very effective honestly. with all due respect.
>> as i said earlier it is very difficult work and we have to keep at it. they are going to keep changing with the deep and we've to keep up with the changes. >> i've got 25 seconds. if i could come at the very difficult work is not difficult to wait. >> this is an important issue. i would think you'd want to know the answer. >> you've got uavs sitting after watching every tank and when a tanker truck gets full tu simply pop it with some -- >> we actually have been very successful identifying where they keep their tanker trucks, getting at them with are not full of welcome window not with people -- >> they are waiting in line five kilometers long. it's not hard to know whether keeping them. >> the reality is this is an ongoing challenge. it's not something resolve once and for all. but the fact that he had to cut salaries to fight is because they are starved for cash means that we're making progress. we've got to keep at it. >> they made $2 billion last year. they are not start for cash.
>> the gentleman's time has expired. >> in a classified setting of the happy to go through -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- >> thank you, mr. secretary. let me go back to the subject of international monetary financial policies, and start by thanking you and those in your ota office for working with my staff and office on somali remittance. we have the second largest somalia and published in the country and as you know what the weaker central banking they have had great difficulties. so you've been responsive, set a team of to work on something difficult let me spin off on this because sitting here to this entire hearing has been disappointing to me. i want to apologize just in part to you, but more to the people who are watching.
because they lump us all together and talk about the congress and what we are doing. i read an article in american banker, and i was hoping that we would've learned from this because last week we had another one of your colleagues here, director cordray, with the cfpb. and this article talks about how ineffective it is when you are rude and disrespectful, and you don't allow people to answer the question. people who are well-versed in season. mr. chairman, i'd like to enter this into the record, if possible. >> all such exhibits are allowed under general lead, and without objection. >> thank you. i also want to thank you for your answers to the questions about the subpoenas. while i am not a lawyer, practical law talks about in
article after article when an individual or people like your staff receive subpoenas, that it is very customary for them to contact the parties who's subpoenaed them and try to respect fully and informally work out the differences. so i also applaud you for that. i think it's also important for the american audience that watched us to know who we are talking to beyond our titles. and so when i think about your rich history, i think about you not only being a 76 secretary of treasury, white house chief of staff. you mentioned in reference being an omb director, and tons of other jobs. euphoric for a congressperson. you've worked for a speaker of the house, tip o'neill.
and most impressively, you married your childhood sweetheart and you're still married. the all american dream with two children. but let's talk about you in your role. harvard graduate, georgetown law school graduate. and your closest friends so you are exceedingly meticulous. some would say that you are a brilliant scholar. i think it's important when we hear the question after question that clearly you understand the question. and from where i sit you have clearly, not only answered the question, but gone far beyond the call of duty, as one in your position who is responsive for the international monetary financial policies of the trillions and trillions of dollars. you have shared with us a great
growth in the economy. you have shared with us how we have reduced unemployment. and so i say to you as this congresswoman, proud to say dear, that i say to you, the two most important words that i was taught. and the two most important -- powerful words that one can say, and that's thank you. at my mother taught me that a long time ago because she said sometimes it's better to listen and to talk louder then the other person. it is your past a question, what would happen if a person in a regular job were sitting there in cancer. let's change that around, mr. chairman, and ask what if a regular person talked to us in that loud voice pointing their finger and pencil and not letting you answer the question. you don't have to answer that, mr. secretary or mr. chairman.
we know what the answer would be. and lastly, my father who knew me best said remember to always say i'm sorry. i'm sorry for what you've had to go through. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> on your last visit when you hear it and it had occasion to talk with you that we discussed at some length information sharing between homeland securities, homeland securities trade based, transparency units at also the role in assuring together and how important that was. to the extent that they are sharing in terms of a letter to trade-based money laundering that we would be successful. what i ask this question about sharing between homeland security and finsin your response was quick i start out
with a strong bias that we ought to work as one government and that we need to walk rate and collaborate. i start out sympathetic to this initiative. so that was your statement is in response to my questions to you we got a response back from your staff for the record that stated the following. treasury and dhs are in regular contact regarding ways are to agencies can better inform our respective efforts to combat terrorist financing. we are confident we can achieve this important goal through our ongoing strategic relationship, while at the same time maintaining our respective database autonomy. there seems to be a conflict in terms of perspective and philosophy of how they would work together in information sharing that's really so vital. if we have come if homeland security has certain data we are not accessing and finsin that
serve the restriction ability to be able to intercept the information we need. can you kind of respond to this different viewpoint between us and yourself? >> i'm not sure it's a different viewpoint. our activities and tracking down terrorist financing depend on the constant flow of information from the intelligence agencies and the partner agencies like dhs. and likewise we provide enormous amount of information on an appropriate basis back to them. >> so let me ask you, are you going to get into an agreement with dhs in terms of information sharing? >> i'm not aware of a problem right now in terms of information sharing. what i do know is that full access to all the database would put a lot of information that's not necessary into a place that it probably should not be. i think the question is how do we make sure the right information is fully shared and but each protect systems where
personal privacy is an issue for the other information as well. i'm happy to follow up. after you and i talked to the meeting we talked a north collide as will other i followed up with my staff and have urged him to keep working on this. it has not been brought to my attention that there is a problem in terms of the flow of information but is there something specific you're concerned about i agree -- >> i think the work today was there should be a sense of autonomy. coming from your staff, but that's directly opposite in terms of what i heard. i just want to make sure there's an ongoing effort to share this data. you have incredible access to data. i'm familiar with the work you have and what you contribute and, frankly, i think we have a greater need for access with the private sector in their efforts to try to work the long our site. this access to data is a critical component among agencies and among the private sector and with our allies around the world. >> i really do believe that practices we have a treasury
lead the world and how to get the right information into the right hands. and we provide enormous number of leads to the appropriate agencies. you're asking about a query of databases on a kind of real-time basis. >> i need some follow up on that if you could. to other questions quickly. fada has an affordable in terms of bringing its member countries into those full regular complaints is that you're not an enforcer. what's your response of what we do with countries like turkey, kuwait, qatar who clearly have the complicit in terms of transferring financing and being accessible on the? >> we raised these issues very strongly and bilateral -- >> what -- i raised issues. they dodged february they can. what do we -- >> i think we are making progress. >> it's a nice work and i'm not trying to catch off but i don't have much time.
reality is a are very aggressive in their efforts. the habit and we haven't done much, seem much cooperation from them in terms of not being complicit with the financing component. and my last question deals with iran in the banks that come under swift authority. do you believe these things are going to be able to access, i didn't get a clear answer, but they cannot access and work with american financial institutions? >> brief answer. >> what i said in the earlier response is that we will comply with the joint comprehensive plan of action and lifted the new percentage. we will keep other sanctions in place. part of the agreement was to give a grant access to money that it has the right to. we will work on making that happen. it is not going to be our goal to block transactions that are legitimate under the joint comprehensive plan of action but we will enforce in other areas like terrorism and the like.
>> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record correspondence dated march 18 to the gentleman from wisconsin from the assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the department of the treasury. >> begin these are allowed, without objection. >> thank you for being here mr. secretary. you indicated verbally, i just want to confirm that, that, in fact, the dates december 17 of agenda 21st of march 18 you extend an offer to sit down and work through the issue of the supply of certain materials in response to requests. that being in addition to buy my discount more than 5000 pages of documents you had already submitted, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from ohio.
i was first elected to the state house of representatives 40 years ago this year, and my muscle memory is a fairly young man was formed by strict rules prohibiting the impugning of another person's motives. and i've been somewhat surprised in my now 39 months here that that is allowed on too often an occasion. but i took the time to actually look up the house rules, and the house rules do indicate the committee meetings shall be in strict conformity with observance of acceptable standards of dignity, dignity, propriety, courtesy and decorum traditionally observed. so the specific words i want to associate myself with, with respect to the gentlelady from ohio. i am sorry that you didn't deserve that other frankly found it to be an egregious breach of
our own rules. now on to the substance. last fall i think it was undersecretary sheets that was here. i queried him as to whether or not we actually reached out to the newly formed asian infrastructure investment bank to see about ways in which we might collaborate cooperate with that new deep pool of funds available. he seemed to indicate that it was really important that they engage in best practices but the response didn't go much farther than it. there have been a couple of intervening events that might seem to be might affect the degree to which we are reaching out. president she's visit, the imf quota reform. so my question is how we reached out to think what is this an era or cooperate more to invest in infrastructure? >> congressman, i appreciate your comments, with regard to
the asia infrastructure bank, we have made clear from the start that we think it's a good thing for there to be more investment in infrastructure. we didn't have an objection in principle to a new institution but that it was critical it would adhere to high standards. i'm actually quite pleased that setting it to do i can say that our pressure for high standard has occurred with other countries participating. as they approach making the first commitments, they are certainly saying all the right things about adhering to high standards. in terms of collaboration with them, the way that we have talked to them about collaborating is through the existing, the older international financial institutions where if they can collaborate on projects, the new institution piggybacks on the safeguards and the standards of the older institutions. there is work underway looking at cofinancing, for example. we've also offered on a bilateral basis to provide any
technical advice that we can because, frankly, a lot has been learned in the last 70 years those lessons don't all need to be learned again. they say that it's going to be open for fair contracting purposes, and i trust that american firms want to participate in that. but we have not explored joining any more formally. >> thank you. on the subject of infrastructure, it seems to me that what you consider to be infrastructure has evolved very considerably over the centuries from 18th century roads, bridges, aqueducts. 19th century railroads and later sue us. 20th century phones, water treatment, water lines. and the 21st century broadband. all physical. at it occurs to me that when it comes to economic development we might want to consider some soft quote infrastructure investment
namely, standing up a financial regulatory framework, especially in underdeveloped nations for whom not having a developed financial regulatory framework is a great compete in testing impediment to economic developer. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, secretary the for coming and for staying the duration here. following up on my colleague discussion with you, i want to bring up the ongoing ttip negotiations that have been occurring with our counterparts in the eu. next month under the president will be traveling to germany to discuss efforts to advance negotiation on this trade deal. however, as we all know financial services continue to be an issue that is not on the table. as you said last year, you support increasing market access
but if you talk to regulation with i believe the word was skepticism. differt regulatory regimes a special when they are not equivalent would seem to affect market access significantly. isn't it difficult to draw a line between market access and regulation? >> no, congresswoman, actually it is standard practice for market access to be something that is negotiated in trade agreement. it would be very unusual for prudential regulatory issues to be covered in a trade agreement. we don't think it's appropriate for prudential regular toward issues to be handled there. the are places where we collaborate around the world including with our european friends to try and reach agreement on goals that we all share in terms of high standards. we have high standards. we're trying to pull everyone up to. i don't think a trade agreement that could end up chipping away at some of our protections would be the place for prudential regulations to be reopened.
>> with all due respect many participants have said that previous mechanisms so to speak to engage in the regulatory adherence have fallen short, such as the financial markets regulatory dialogue your doesn't this trade agreement represents a unique opportunity to get communications and coordination between the u.s. and the eu right? >> in min my conversations witha european commission i've heard in the last few months of recognition that opening for prudential issues in ttip would not be acceptable to us. i for a renewed interest in using the financial markets regulatory dialogue as a place to drive those discussions which we think is the right way to do it. >> i heard quite different from that it's feckless and, frankly, not effected. as a former denies its ambassador and diplomat to one of the financial hubs in luxembourg, i find your response concerning.
on the subject moving on up comparing eu and u.s. in terms of financial service regulations, i would like to bring up the eu's call for evidence that is currently ongoing looking at unnecessary regulatory burdens and other unintended consequences to, in fact, just last week european commissioner for financial stability jonathan hill said, and i quote, you can't expect to get everything right or to predict exactly how rules are going to interact. do you disagree with lord hill's statement? >> i think lord hill's statement reflects the fact we always need to keep asking is what we're doing right and appropriate com and we certainly take that view in terms of our analysis of everything that we do. >> it doesn't seem as sockets doesn't seem as sockets ever taken up such a comprehensive review such as what the eu is currently doing. do you support dialogue here -- >> whelps biggest let me finish my question. similar to what the eu is doing looking at the impacts that all,
all of our post-financial crisis regulations have had on economic growth and financial stability speak with our regulators are in the middle of a regular process that's every five years of reviewing their regulations to look back and see which regulations require reconsideration. i think that's the right way for it to happen. they've been having hearings around the country. they each have the authority over their own organic statutes. it's not that fsoc responsibility when i was omb director and didn't look back at the federal agencies to report directly i was struck that it was not in my purview to go to the independent agencies. >> eu's call for evidence tasks for real analysis regarding punitive impact of regulations including regulations that have yet to be implemented. how have you looked at future regulations such as basel 4.0 and the fundamental review of
trading book, and how these fit in with our current structure? >> our view is that we always need to be looking at the risks of the future, not the past. we have to make sure our financial regulatory system doesn't come out of date and we do that domestically. we do that international as we participate in various multilateral bodies. >> i think i've run out of time. >> the time of the gentlady has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, thanks for your testimony today. i wanted to follow up to questions from a colleague as a member of the terrorism financing task force. as you know the work of the treasury is critically important particularly the office of technical assistance. we know from our hearings, our hearings have revealed significant gaps in the anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing capacity in any developing countries. my question to you is, given the
role of the office of technical assistance and the agency for international development at the state department within the u.s. government, which of these agencies takes the lead in providing assistance to our allies and other countries? >> obviously the office of technical assistance as the subject matter knowledge to be most capable in this area. usaid had resources in some places we don't. we collaborate together to try and work in partnership. one of the reasons we propose over the next several years to double ot eight it is i think what are the most important ways we can build the capacity in other countries, not just in terrorist financing. one of the things you need to do is have transparency and openness of the business that vibe to get those countries where they need to be. that gives you the ability to do with terrorist financing. you get multiple improvements like building the kind of infrastructure in this area. i've seen tremendous progress made in places where our oda
advisors are in there. >> obviously given today's news of the tragedy in brussels, we continue to be reminded that we must confront radical islamic terrorism. we must be proactive, disengagement is not an option. i would hope that we certainly coordinate within our own government in terms of who takes the lead on providing technical assistance. because we know from our work under oversight of these developing countries have significant gaps in terms of their financial systems, law enforcement and judicial systems. spent i don't think the problem is coordination. we just don't have enough people out there. i think we could do a lot more good work with more people. >> lets talk about the financial action task force. that task force to reduce countries, makes recommendations. should we work with the sat f2
of recommendations on cordoning technical assistance to developing countries? >> we do work with the sat upon coordinator this is a. we work with the imf on according systems. between ourselves and cut by the imf as were most of the technical assistance is coming from and we were closer together constantly spent i think we do have a good model and we didn't have recommendations on better coordination your under secretary kimmitt in our hearing indicated that while we have plenty of commerce department usda attaches over a number of our indices this on a couple dozen treasure attaches in the indices. that seems to me to be insufficient number given the threat environment. it doesn't seem to me would seem to me we can't officially project our economic for our counterterrorism financing objectives without more treasury attaches deployed worldwide. would you agree to?
>> i wouldn't say no to more treasure attaches. i would not suggest any inadequate in the treasury attaches we have out there. they do a tremendous job. >> i'm not suggesting that but wouldn't you agree having treasury at the shades deployed in more places would be at least as importan important as agricue attaché's? >> i'm not going to question the value of other at the issues. i can tell you the valley of treasure attaches is very high. >> we need to continue to work on that. quickly in my remaining time let me ask you about the insurance capital standards and sequencing. i'm concerned the i a as standard setting process might run and prejudice the federal reserve process for insurance capital will make it to congress weighed in by requiring the fed to implement non-bank-centric standards, more insurance pays capital standard what we don't want is for the international committee can make and run on the. do you share those concerns and
what is treasure doing to ensure that timeline accommodates the work of the fed going for? >> we discussed earlier how important it is for us to make progress with a covered agreement. that would make clear what the line between prudential and capital issues is. that would be, give a lot of protection to our firms. we don't think that other countries should set capital requirements. >> domestic regulators have about the fsb rules for banking, so we would hope the treasury would work with fed to prevent -- >> i'm not sure i agree with that characterization. the fsb rules for banking but i'm happy we agree on insurance >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if we could stay on this international insurance issue for a minute. i'm concerned that for negotiate would use this process as a vehicle to impose rules that the u.s. firms at a disadvantage by unfairly targeting products they
offer. as you know the i ais has approved our capital charges for some just insurance products by labeling them as nontraditional. however, the arsenal interest products offered by foreign firms that have not been subjected to a higher capital charge that i see this as an example afford to be shared using international stuart us-based firms. why does this until success and what is treasury doing to address this because i've tried to respond that the eu is implementing insurance regulatory reform that they call solvency to back double subject and issuer to disengage his treatment of the insurer, the insurers, the country of domicile is not recognized. one of the reasons to get this covered agreement is to have a frame for preventing that from happening. we are very much engaged and very much focused on that.
>> chair yellen testified recently lamented the headwinds that are facing the economy. economy. i would argue many of headwinds we face are man-made and self-imposed. i considered the affordable care act where we had congressional budget office say that's going to cost 2 million jobs. >> missed the first half of the sense. >> but the look of epa regulations by throwing middle-clmiddle-cl workers in my district out of work. then you look at dodd-frank which was sold as way to end too big to fail and protect consumers. and, of course, former treasurer geithner acknowledged it didn't end too big to fail. it was sold as protecting consumers and i say consumers losing products like free checking. in 2015 report by the office of financial research pointed out market liquidity has become more fragile, that broker-dealer inventories had shrunk, and that those inventories had concentrated in high quality liquid assets.
the office of financial research highlight several factors contributing to fragility in income markets come mainly make capital standard and the volcker rule. you agree that these regulations are factor leading to reduced fixed income liquidity? >> as i've testified to this committee before, we are open to look at any other contributing factors. market liquidity is an important element in any well functioning financial system. by most measures of market liquidity, particularly in the treasury market, we are now with the historical ranges. there's things going on in the market that require more attention. that's one of the reasons we put out a request for information to try to understand how some of the transformation and the structure of our markets is affecting the way the markets perform and potentially liquidity. i think we're in a world now of electronic trading, high-frequency trading, algorithmic trading their meaning many, really most of the
transactions taking place are not what people think of as traditional individuals making decisions. that's having potentially an effect as well. >> i guess i'm trying, i think you would agree in part than with some of the conclusions over all? >> i don't attribute great weight to the notion that regulatory changes are a key driver. i think if you look at the stability of our financial system, the health of our economy, the health of our markets. in the beginning of issue with substantial market -- >> i'm sorry, you said regulatory actions are not a key driver's? >> i said i'm not convinced they are a key driver, yes. yes. >> i like to touch on something that former treasury secretary larry summers recently mentioned. he didn't have op-ed in the "washington post" saying it's time to kill the hundred dollar bill. he discussed a recent paper by harvard university school of advocates are stopping issue of
high denomination notes like the 500 yuan note and the $100 bill or even withdrawing them from circulation. he has support this idea from the late '90s. removing such currency would reduce corruption and crime around the world while having little downside for legitimate business or savers. he goes on to call for a global -- high denomination notes. steve forbes recent vote in "the wall street journal" that he's concerned this idea would harm average americans. i'm wondering if you would have an opinion on this? >> i think there's a big difference between the $100 bill and the 500 euro note or the 1000 swiss frank know. i think large bills like a 500 euro bill are problematic. >> they are problematic because? >> because th of the ease with which you can have large amounts of money is fivefold from 1100 euro bill would be. >> i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you, mr. secretary for taking the time to be here. want to be able to visit with you. actually a local off of my colleagues comment where you just made the comment that you are not convinced that regulatorregulator y changes are a key driver in terms of some the challenges we are having. i'd like to go back to when we visited last year. we were talking about small banks and the impact they are feeling because of the regulatory burdens that are being placed on them. i'm sure you're aware that we've had more consolidation of banks, fewer applications for new banks starting up into our communities providing access to talk about a little earlier in regards to liquidity. to be able to go the economy. because we frankly a tale of two economies in this country. given your opening statement that was rather glowing on the american economy come as you travel through the third district of colorado we are continuing to see many cases what the real unemployment level double digit unemployment.
more business shutting down a new business startups. many of those businesses have expressed to me that their challenge is being able to get capital from their local banks. banks are telling us they're having an inability to be up to make those loans because expanded regulations. when you're making a comment the regular changes are not a key driver, we that testimony coming from chair yellen, vice chair, acknowledging there is a problem with rules and regulations and impact on our financial markets. you dispute their comments? >> i would like to see the specific comments to respond to rather than just -- >> they were talking about -- >> i think we are talking about different things when they use the word liquidity. typically, liquidity is used to talk about matching buyers and sellers in markets for stocks and bonds. i think what you are asking but as a slightly different question that's not something we typically referred to as liquidity but it as liquidity but it's what is the availability of lending to small
businesses and maybe individuals. we believe the credit box has gotten narrower in some ways than it needs to be. that's why for example, sha last week moved to try and make clear that the credit box for mortgages should be eased some. i think on the small business side, a lot of small businesses before the financial crisis got access to capital by having individuals really tap into their home equity. so it's a different question than what happens in the stock -- >> but my point is the regulations we're seeing on a lot of our community banks. last year when we sat down and visited, you did express that you hadn't really talked about this in terms of the fsoc. in fact, when we reviewed the minutes from 2010-2014, it had not been raised once. what is the threshold has to be passports what matters have to
be in place to have those conversations take place at your level? >> i have had conversations with all of the prudential regulators about the need to use the flexibility that they have did not have a one size fits all approach. i don't believe have a one size fits all approach. they need to keep looking at what can they do to provide the kind of proper accommodation to small institutions that don't present the kinds of risks that some of the larger ones do. when we talk about small institutions we are not always talking about the same thing. the real community banks are quite small. even the $50 billion threshold that's now in place for us if he is way bigger than your typical community bank. when the people raise questions as institutions of hundreds of billions of dollars come would talk about community banks anymore. >> unfortnuately, as chair yellen again point out we are
seeing that trickle-down effect of regulation that are impacting both the inside important thing for you to be able to address the? >> i think what to do two things at the same time. we have to make sure our system is safe and sound and we are not exposed to the kind of financial crisis that did so much damage to the country in 2007-2008. we have to be asking ourselves are the things that we can do to make it easier for small financial institutions. >> i get the point that our banks are asking, the community banks which did not cause the financial crisis is, when can we expect to be of the season collection rather than talk? >> the kinds of things that we've discussed in this hearing room and other hearing rooms, there are areas like the regularity of reviews for small banks. we are open to having conversations, but when we see a piece of legislation that would really reveal major parts of financial reform, that's a place we are not going. it's a question can have a
conversation about reasonable things. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. >> thanks richard durbin. thank you, mr. secretary for being here. let me add my comments on previous questions submitted. as a former treasury employee you are making me look bad. i submitted questions to you on june 17, 2015 and i hope you will surely that you will get prompt answers to my questions. ..
that are set up to appropriately deal with it. >> derivative issue of the subject of management and data centers was a big part of it. financial services are not included. >> i think you mean tpp. >> tpp. i have heard concern it is problematic. our financial services companies are not being treated like non- financial services. >> data localization, we generally oppose that.
i put ai put a considerable amount of effort into making sure that it was not required where it was really no more than a nontariff barrier. the issue is our own regulators feel that they need guaranteed access to timely and appropriate information, and there has been experience when i was cut off. we are trying to reconcile legitimate interest of the financial institution not to have nontariff barriers and costs imposed the needs of regulators to be guaranteed access information. we are trying to walk our way through that. tpp is closed. perhaps there can be mentioned in aa side piece that is helpful, but the question is going forward what will be the framework for future negotiation?
>> i think that financial services players can provide regulators data that is needed in order to do their job looking forward to meeting expectations, but it is concerning financial services companies are headquartered here and not getting the same accordance on data localization the non- financial services are. >> and that's what we're trying to work over through this. >> large banks have been facilitated favorable terms.
particularly those that are in the community development program cannot wondering if i could have your commitment that people bring your market oriented offer to exit their position that they could be done by the end of the obama administration. >> it would be my finest hope. >> i would think so. there are a lot of small institutions that are not getting the attention when they are bringing quality opportunities to exit. >> we will continue to put every effort into it. >> the other thing on my mind recently for commercial mortgage-backed securities. the fed has rulemaking in jeopardy from refinance risk and i think treasury should be interested in the bill we
put forward. >> am happy to take a look at it. >> the gentleman yields back. >> you -- >> thank you very much for being here. i would like to follow up on the discussion a short time ago. one of the new regulators as a result of the administrations new financial regulations, they have a new office building for there 1500 employees and it cost the taxpayers about 200 million. they do not on the building and i think that is a huge waste of taxpayer money. there was -- mr. cordray was here in march testifying in front of this committee, it was the treasury who was in charge of all bureau
operations. and so my question to you is, you have been follow-up letters the date back 288 days asking you specifically, who in fact at the cfp be a treasury, they said it was you folks who are in charge. >> congressman, i responded earlier that we did follow up on this and provide the inspector general findings. i am happy to five 25 when
you get back, who is responsible for making the decisions. >> he will get back. >> 288 days. that seems to be an awful lot of time. >> in august 25 treasury informed the committee they found the work authorizations related to the renovation were finalized after cfp. >> here is what i am concerned about. these are simple simple questions i'm asking you, they are not complicated. if you are unwilling or unable to answer a simple question and puts in doubt the american taxpayers. make decisions that affect
and just rates that are far above. >> i am also going to assume in the annual interest payment on the debt at that time only about 440 billion. the interest on the debt will exceed national defense.defense. given the fact that this administration continues to submit budgets to us interest payments,payments, not the percent of the gdp represented by the deficit, but when those interest payments become a concern.
>> congressman, as gdp grows tom -- nominal dollars grow. more work to do, but we are not and a moment of crisis. they are in a stable, sustainable place. >> a former state treas. there were 49 states that had to balance their budget. they spend what they want, bar what they need. do you think a balanced budget is something that we need? >> no. >> tell me why. >> i think your out of time. >> i think the responsibility for making policy rests with the congress and the president that a mechanical approach that will make it difficult if not impossible to respond to crises. >> bills that have been submitted.
the american people have seen. >> time of the gentleman has expired. i would like to thank the witness for his testimony and without objection all members will have five legislative days with them which to submit additional written questions. i would remind the witness we have over a dozen questions that are still pending by both democrat and republicans on the june hearing. i would ask our witness to please take this seriously and have treasury respond promptly. without objection call members have five legislative days within which to submit questions to the chair for inclusion in the record. this hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
interns. and here book tv in prime time. beginning at eight the death of cancer followed by shrinks. just after ten >> american history tv this is weekend on saturday afternoon at 2:00 o'clock while professorprofessor jeffrey rosen talks about the influence of former chief justice john marshall. >> my jeff -- my gift was the proudest act of my life. widely praised for transforming the supreme court in the what his biographer calls a dominant
force in american life. >> roger role. >> imaginary target in space. a remarkable flying machine. road to the white house rewind. >> i have decided that i will trust my ability to win in the fires of the primary. and not just the smoke-filled room of miami. >> a panel of authors on the recent books the 1930s to
the 1970s. >> the coalition of labor unions, mexican-american civil rights leaders and religious authorities came together to protest exportation and in fact accelerate congress' decision to terminate at the next year in 1964. i think that this was a moment of blossoming for the chicano movement. >> keynote remarks of the american israel public affairs committee annual policy conference. and he urged the rejection of palestinian statehood. >> good morning america.
good morning. a special good morning to the 4,000 students cutting class today. greetings to all of you from jerusalem. i want to 1st in my condolences to the families of those murdered in today's terrorist attacks in brussels. the chain of attacks from paris to san bernardino thought is ten bold with the ivory coast command now brussels and the daily attacks in israel, this is one continuous assault aloneness. in all these cases the terrorists of a resolvable grievances.
rustlers similar california buried in the west bank that won't satisfy their grievances. because what they seek is our other -- uttered his direction and their total domination. their basic demands is that we should simply disappear. well, my friends, that is not going to happen. the only way to defeat these terrorists is to join together and fight them together. that is how we will defeat terrorism. with political unity and
moral clarity. i think we have that in abundance. and i want to thank today the leadership of aipac and each and every one of you. i thank you for the tremendous support you have provided israel over so many years. i thank you for the clear and unequivocal stance you took last year during the nuclear iran deal the comeau one critical for israeli security, and that debate, though intense, did not undermine the unbreakable alliance between israel and the united states. as part of that great alliance america has generously provided israel with many of the tools we need to defend ourselves.
we are now working on a new agreement to help bolster israeli security in the years to come. i hope we can conclude the agreement soon. and i take this opportunity once again to thank president obama for his support, including for ballistic missile defense. israel deeply appreciates and we also deeply appreciate the strong, bipartisan support for israel in congress and the strong, overwhelming support for israel among the american people. year after year the
overwhelming majority of americans stand with israel. they know something profound. stands out for all to see. they know that israel is an island of liberty and democracy and stability in the city of despotism and violence and instability that surrounds us, and that is why i believe that israel must never be a nation that defies america, but a great cause of liberty that unites americans. my friends, two weeks ago i visited northern israel. it was they're 2,000 years ago that the romans began
their military campaign against the jews. i am holding in my hand right now an exact replica of an arrow found there. one of thousands used by the romans and their war to crush jewish independence. yet two millennia later the jewish people are once again free and sovereign and our ancient homeland. and in rebuilding our land, state, economy, army, science, culture we have achieved remarkable successes, but it is true we also face great challenges.
we are in fact today witnessing to contradictory trends. first, the positive trend. every day high level delegations land at the airport, come from america, europe, increasingly from asia, africa, latin america as many confront the rise of militant islam, they come to strengthen security. they wish to learn from israel's proven security and intelligence capabilities how to better protect their own people, but they also come because they want to upgrade their economies and for good reason, israeli know how is power in world
computers, navigating cars for protecting bank accounts. his rent -- lead to breakthroughs in medical treatment, helps farmers around the world yield more crops or produce more work, more milk, conserve water. for all these reasons the world is coming israel. today we have diplomatic relations with 161 countries. more than at any time in history.history. and they are not that many countries left. as a 2nd negative trend.
while we are embraced, there are those who seek to malign israel. and especially along the united nations. slender like no other country on earth. , subjected to consistent systematic discrimination to my israel. only israel is hounded by un bodies especially established to deliver -- delegitimize his very existence. condemned every year by hostile resolutions. the un has a record of
singling out israel for castigation and condemnation. why would anyone think that the un could decide (secure peace for israel? yet amazingly there are some who believe exactly that. they seek to impose terms of israel and the un security council. in those terms would undoubtedly be stacked against us, they'll was are. so such an effort would only convince the palestinians that they can stab their way to the state, mind you not one next to israel but one instead of israel, security
council resolution to pressure israel which would further harden palestinian positions and thereby actually kill chances of piece for many, many years. and that is why i hope the united states will maintain his long-standing position to reject such a un resolution. i was glad to here the presidential candidates from both parties reaffirm this basic principle. piece won't come through un security council resolutions but through direct negotiations between the parties. the best formula for achieving piece remains two states for two peoples in which a demilitarized
palestinian state finally recognizes the jewish state. now,now, i know there is skepticism about my views on this. let me state unequivocally, and here is the acid test. i am ready to begin such negotiations immediately without preconditions anytime anywhere. that is a fact. the president abbas is not ready to do so. that's also a fact.
there is political will hear in jerusalem. there is no political will there and ramallah. for the last five and a half years president abbas has refused to sit down and talk with me, even for a minute. but that does not mean he has been silent. he has helped inculcate a new generation of young palestinians with murderous hatred for israel. in my friends, this incitement has deadly consequences. palestinian children are taught to stab jews, they are taught that the goal of the palestinian people is not to establish a state on the west bank but all of israel.
now, what i am about to show you is deeply disturbing. i think you must see for yourselves what the palestinians are teaching their children. i want you to see the daily pledge of allegiance of palestinian children. take a look. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i am the palestinian child. my toys on the rock.