than $100,000 per year? >> yes. 700. >> 61% make more than $100,000 per year. are you aware those that make more than the cabinet secretary which makes $1,900 per year? . .

>> this is part of america's $43,000. >> i would like to ask specifics about the program.

[inaudible question] >> as an employee, i understand the two psychologists who are both there, they are making a six-figure salary. i understand that the website offers a possible explanation for employing these psychologists. let me just say that they are developing and testing institution strategies to build on insights and behavioral psychology. we are working on this to help consumers classify the financial challenges that they have on a regular basis. for example, people who start a new job have an employer-sponsored retirement account and behavioral research has shown that of new employees are automatically --

automatically signed up, but have the option to opt out at any time, enrollment rates are much higher we will take a close look at the other problems that are like this. this is based on well researched hypotheses. we will evaluating effectiveness of the solutions, as with other products, we will share our research and the financial educators policymakers and the public, all from the website of the ctf be and their psychologists. sir, why does the ptfe need psychologists come and what do they do?

>> one of the items that they are working on is the employee survey. >> please do. >> ladies time has expired. okay, so the employee survey that would've otherwise been done for free if he would have complied with the survey for the record. we now recognize ms. maloney from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. mchenry. i think you and the ranking member for calling this hearing. we welcome mr. augustine now. the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau was very important.

sometimes this is a very thought aforethought and the creation of the agency that focused with consumers and protecting them and this was a priority of many democrats including myself and many of us believe that if we had had an agency focusing on protecting consumers, possibly we could have prevented the subprime crisis. the abuses would have been pointed out. and hopefully they would have been stopped. and this was to come out with a simplified mortgage statement that consumers can understand. that they could compare between financial institutions. and i think that that is an important step forward. also, the help for men and women in the military. help for young people. they have had a number of

initiatives. but one of the goals that i read about with mr. augustine now, you want to be very much a goal driven agency. you want to have their own oversight and their own actions that they take. just last week, your agency came out with an overdraft fee report that found that some financial institutions, not all of them, but some of them were not following best practices and were following abusive overdraft practices to maximize their overall fees at the pain of consumers to the point of $30 billion, if i remember correctly. we used data driven analysis to inform ourselves. and i would like you to comment

about some of the items that you have heard. i believe it came out on monday. do you believe that the cfpb has the authority to address these practices and correct them on its own through rulemaking? >> congresswoman, thank you for the question. i believe there are others in the bureau that are much more adept at answering questions like this. i would rather have them put together a response for you. >> i would also say that the fact that you are here today, it shows that you are accountable to congress. some of my colleagues say that the cfpb is not accountable to congress shows you me that you are responding and are accountable to congress and they also say that this is unusual to

have a financial agency that is so independent. all the agencies that deal with finance are independent. is that not correct? with independent funding sources >> congresswoman, many of the agencies that you're referencing, like the federal reserve, like the fdic, they have independent sources are funding and are not subject to the provisions process. with respect to accountability, i would say that we have a great deal of accountability ranging from reports of congressional finances and independent audits that are mandated by the act and along with the reviews coupled with reports that are established with frequency to congress for annual reporting as well as the appropriations

committee. there is a debate sometimes about how the structure of it should be. i believe you are the only agency that can overrule your actions. is that not correct? >> it is an unprecedented power and. >> that is the case that they can overrule. i do not know and i believe that there are others that fall into that review and i would be happy to bring others to the position to bring that back to you. >> congresswoman, i will speak from the financial controls and financial review aspect. i think that we are very proud of our ability to stand up quickly. one has a very important mission with respect to the consumers. i think that we are very proud of our internal control reviews and our checks and balances that we sent internally. making sure that we are

expeditious in an appropriate manner for our mission. i believe that policies and procedures that we set in place, that even the gal has spoke to those controls in the effectiveness and success that we have. >> we will now go to the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, asr analytics, in its independent performance audit results reported on november 12 of last year, they recommended that the cfpb should participate in annual employee survey to provide a mechanism for anonymous employee feedback. despite this very specific recommendation and despite the fact that i am told that 98% of

all executive branch agencies participate in the opm and annual surveys, they decided to pick and choose. forty-four questions of the 84 questions required by this opm survey. so my first question is why did your agency designed its own survey selectively identifying questions that it chose to ask instead of participating in the survey, which 90% of all agencies participate in. >> i believe that the reason in the survey is that it is a brand-new agency with an infrastructure that we were putting into place that we had a sense that the opm product, which i am familiar with, that

it was not necessarily appropriate for us. >> to other executive branch agencies that are subject to more direct appropriations process, do they get to tailor their own self-evaluations the way that the cfpb had done? >> i believe they are participating with the program that they use that particular survey instrument. but there are, i think you reference the 98% and the agencies that don't participate at times. >> isn't it true that we were able to avoid being ranked alongside all the other agencies subject to this more standardized uniform product, opm survey product that now makes us part of congressional oversight and investigators have

a difficult time comparing performance to other executive branch agencies? >> congressman, we are not ranked because we do not participate trade. >> so they avoided asking at least 40 questions of their staff. are you aware why your agency sought to avoid those specific questions required of other federal agencies? >> i think at the time when we were doing our survey, we have done a number of surveys internally already. we arguably have done a sizable set of surveys in advance. our view is putting the work force through a sizable survey that soon after some of the internal surveys we had done was going to be burning some. >> you just testified that your

agency was accountable. why you are accountable, one of the agencies the just mentioned, you subject yourself to a variety of audits. that independent audit says that you should submit to the survey. you did not do that. so why on earth would we believe you, that you are accountable, when you do not even follow the recommendations of the independent auditor that you say hold you accountable. >> i believe the audit came out in november of 2012. i believe that we had done the survey prior to that. we still have a survey that needs to be done. we will take those recommendations seriously to heart. we will proceed with that information. >> i would encourage you to follow the recommendations that you say are critical to holding

you accountable. i want to know of the 1200 employees of your agency, what percentage approximately of those employees have any experience in the private sector working for a bank or a credit union or a financial institution that is subject to regulatory oversight. i'm not talking about attorneys or former prosecutors. i'm talking about baker's or credit union employees. >> congressman, i am happy to give that back to you and find out what that will be for those individuals to would you say that is less than 50% -- that they have private sector backgrounds? >> congressman, i do not know the answer to that question. >> okay. >> we will now go to the ranking member, mr. green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i did not come prepared to deal

with this comparative salary analysis. however, i would like to make a few points. let us consider the highest-paid hedge fund manager in the year 2007. he made $3 billion prettily taking an minimum-wage worker at that time 198,000 years to make this. this hedge fund manager was making what he minimum-wage worker makes in about 37 and 38 seconds. similar circumstances, that is an amount that would require 265,000, 252 years for minimum-wage worker.

took a hedge fund manager about 28 seconds to make that another minimum-wage worker makes in the year. the numbers are fascinating. they can be intriguing. they can also point out some things that are important. the cost of the financial crisis said to be $1222. consumer financial protection bureau cost each taxpayer about $2 per year. that is less than 17 cents per day. pardon me, about 17 cents per week and about a half penny a day. moving on to your cost compared to the other agencies, my research shows that the top salary of the occ is about

260,000 in the top salary at the fed is about 260,000 as well. so you're within the range of the other agencies and we are mandated to have salaries comparable to these agencies, that is my understanding. as it relates to the salaries with reference to the occ and the fed, does that help with refreshing your memory to any extent? >> congressman, yes, i believe that the top salaries are up to 250,000 for their executive individuals. and yes, that does play a part. >> let's talk about this for edification purposes. there is no one behind you that are interns write? >> that is correct, sir. >> if there are, they are quite useful. it would be a little bit out of the way that i work with.

but my information from our staff, which is quite good indicates that you have about 64 paid interns in the range of pay is from $14 and 72 cents to $20 and 20 cents per hour. and the average, as they worked for full-time hours for 10 weeks, we would be paying the interns about $5800 to $8100 each. an average of about $7300. this is incorrect, i'm sure someone will correct the record heard about is what i researched research and that is what the research indicates. do you have persons they came over from some other federal agency? >> approximately 80% of our

employees, congressman our tran-threes from other agencies. >> do they come with skills that they have required as a result with working with these other agencies? >> yes, sir. >> quickly can you tell me about your attrition rates compared to other agencies, if you can. >> i believe that our attrition rate is almost exactly the same as the attrition rate with other federal agencies. >> what about independent budgeting? >> having the funding, congressman, allows me to focus on what we are doing. also creates a situation where we are similar to many of the agencies that we work with shoulder to shoulder. >> thank you. i will leave you with this.

there are many who think that congresspeople are slightly were paid. iraq yield back the bounds of my time. >> i think the chairman for holding this hearing. i sat through the last couple of hours we have been here on us. the take away i have gotten so far is that we had an agency that lax oversight and lacks accountability. from your answers, i get that we could pinpoint exactly who the public can go to if they are looking for accountability. we have discussed the issue of appropriations. as far as i understand it, there is no accountability to the senate appropriations because there is no accountability on the budget to house appropriators because this funding comes through the federal reserve. by your testimony today, as i understand it, the federal

reserve is not subject to review as far as the funds coming to it as well. in addition, there is something called the consumer financial penalty fund, which the cfpb may use, with my understanding, to selectively compensate victims in cases but not by this agency but those in the state attorney general's and private plaintiffs. so that there is no oversight outside of this entity as well. are any of those facts and correct as i have stated with regard to the funding? >> congressman, the act itself anticipated. >> i understand, but are any facts correct with the oversight of the spending? >> we are proceeding as the act has established it? >> are any of my facts and correct? >> with respect to the funding and the transfer, they represent the facts. >> i understand that that is not

your doing as far as the creation of the law, you're just implementing what congress did. but it seems ironic in this day and age when we are trying to rein in runaway spending that we would create an agency that would basically have no constraints on i by any elected body whatsoever or by the federal, which is not an elected body, then to try to say, well, can't we equate this to be realized as well but this agency is unique in the fact that it does not have a commission like the sec does. so this is a unique agency unlike any other in the federal reserve that is able to spend upwards to a half billion dollars without any public accountability whatsoever. now, this may be arguably good if they were doing extremely

high amounts of benefit to the public. but the number they gave us this first civil penalties bill was 425 million. how does that compare to at the track record was only had the fdic, the occ and the ots doing it prior to that? >> you have an answer to that? >> no, i don't. >> and you want to see how you compared to other entities prior to your existence to existence to see whether you're doing it in a cost-efficient manner? >> we have not done that. not to my knowledge. >> it was on an upward spiral trajectory in this entity went from 151 and 170, that was two years ago. the 420 million is basically on the same directory as all the other agencies and those agencies were doing it without the cost that we are doing it right now over $500 million

coming to the federal reserve, which basically means coming to the taxpayers of this country, that the money didn't go there, and it would come back to the general fund. so i'm not sure that we are getting anything for additional benefits. but it is coming out lack of accountability and the lack of efficiency at the same time. can you disagree with that point? >> palmerston, we do have the accountability that was established. >> let me understand that. who is it that you are accountable to directly? >> congressman, and yet we have a unique situation where the general accountability office reviews our financial statements and we have a situation with an independent audit that is mandated to go over our budget and other items that are deemed

this way. >> is a if they find something wrong, they did contract to direct you to change the way they operate? >> we take all of our audit findings very seriously. >> is that a yes or no question? can they find something wrong in the operation? >> if they were to find a finding, that would represent significant and we would indeed -- >> is the chairman will allow this, can they direct you to take action. >> can they direct you to take action? >> if they find a significant deficiency. >> can they direct you to take action -- can they direct you to take action. >> they cannot.

>> to the dao directed to take that action? and the director to do so? >> we now recognize the gentlelady for five-minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you ranking member. thank you to our witnesses today. before asked my question, i would be remiss if i didn't welcome you. i am somewhat disappointed that the director could not be here and i had the opportunity to work with him as one of the state of ohio's cochair on financial literacy. i do have a financial literacy

question. and i will come back to that in a moment. it has recently passed $1 trillion. >> this, in turn come a ways on the economy as a whole. can you explain how the cfpb has approached this critical issue.

>> i would prefer that in our office. we handle our student loan initiatives and i would say that it is one of the areas that we are very proud of in terms of the activities that we have proceeded with. but he is much more adept at answering those questions. >> thank you. going back to the financial question is part of my colleagues. they have argued that the cfpb should be subject to ensure greater accountability for the agency. this is despite the fact that congress has consistently provided for independent funding for other bank regulators. in your own personal view, can you tell me how likely you could explain why congress gave all

the bank regulators independent funding, and to what extent is it important for a regulator with responsibility for examining large institutions with stable and consistent funding. >> congressman, i think that your last point is the point that having that stable funding allows us to focus on our mission. it allows us to play an equally important role with other entities and have other sources of funding that allows us to be a significant actor in the areas of consumer protection that we are tasked with doing by congress. >> as we have heard a lot of questions about the salaries, we

have a smaller budget. do you have any knowledge of people not being transparent with salaries or misappropriations within your own district? i'm sure that in your own office there is internal checkpoints on if you spend the money for what it was supposed to have been spent. i have not heard of any glaring things where you have been challenged with any problems financially. can you talk to an administrator on how you feel about how you have been spending the dollars? >> yes, i would point to the most recent audit of our financials. not only where we were given an audit opinion by the dao, but we also did not receive a management letter from them, which is typically provided to entities when they are our considerations where management should take up in the opinion

and giving them the review of the dao. i think that that speaks volumes to our internal controls and our finances in the manner in which we are spending our funds. >> has not been consistent over the past three years with that? i'm just looking at something and reading from the gao. it talks about 19 of 24 major agencies. where we do have some of the accountability is in those agencies that you don't have. and the gao is saying that they could not render clean opinions on their statements. >> congresswoman, it is a very important thing to us. two years in a row has been a testament to how we have operated. >> we now recognize the government for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. agostini for being here. a quick question.

are there other employees that are here as well today. i'm wondering if they could raise her hand. >> okay. a question i would have. there has been reporting recently of loss of employees, especially high-level employees. management level employees. that could be concerning for a lot of reasons. but i just think it's important for us to discuss that for a couple of moments. i know including the chief of staff, the c.o.o., victor printz bart shapiro, leslie parrish, benjamin olson, many others as well. i know several officials offered different reasons for a flood of

departures, but many sided cultural clashes between the new agency and the regulators. they also pointed to aggressive recruiting in the private market of agency personnel coupled with the expected turnover. i wanted to talk about the other side of this as well. something that i am hearing that is concerning to me. i had a meeting small and medium-sized banks from the midwest area. talking to them about some of their biggest frustrations that they have. it is uncertainty and not knowing the regulations they are going to have to comply with. one of the bankers there had a line that really struck me. and i think that it ties into the factor were concerned that we have with a loss of senior staff, people with institutional knowledge as well. but this baker said that i have been in banking for 30 years and i understand how to run a bank. my bank is small. never been a threat to any

financial viability to our nation. but now i have regulators telling me how to run my bank and a lot of these regulators were playing hakki sat on the quad two years ago, and now they are telling me how to run my bank. something is wrong. and i think that that has increased the huge turnover that has happened. management clearly should accept some responsibility, at least a share of the blame for the recent large exodus of the staff over the recent months. would you agree? would there be some questioning their? >> congressman cohen i believe that many of those people have left for a variety of reasons. representing new opportunities or a desire to do something different. the first two plus years at the bureau have been very intense. i think that the main focus was

it was time to do something different and there was a range of reasons. >> i understand that people make decisions. but there seems to be more than random to that departures, a pattern that would be wise for you all to address. tied into that when new employees are saying that they are not going to be receiving proper training to do their job, and yet small and medium-sized banks especially, just west of chicago in my area, they are dealing with the consequences of new people who are regulators and saying that they haven't received adequate training to be doing this. and yet they have significant authority. this is a problem. i think we have to address it. another problem that we have to address, many others today have discussed it, congress and washington it was set up to have checks and balances. i would say most places have those checks and balances. one that doesn't have them right

now, it seems completely unaccountable. that is a very real concern that i have. even as i see small and medium-sized banks who feel like they have adverse decisions or regulation or reports placed on them, there is no place for them to go to have a check on us. it was his proper, did the person have the training to make this decision. how can we go back and question him. i think that we do have to clear this up. it is a real problem. on top of the fact when people say that they don't have adequate training to do the job that they have been given to do. a lot of senior management has been leaving. and the consequences are falling back on small and medium-sized banks and they are real. they are being crushed by this. just the last couple of seconds that i have, i know that we also have some really big questions about the number of contributions that we are supposed to have with an independent agency. yet 95% of the employees

contributed to presidential races the last election cycle, given the irs scandal, such a politically unbalanced organization truly is at risk with similar political biases as the irs, potentially exercising this powerful regulatory authority. my time is expired, but i think that these are important questions for us to ask with an independent agency that doesn't have anybody to keep it in a check and balance. with that, you look back. >> we would like to now enter into the second round of questions. the chair recognizes mr. duffy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to move back to her salary conversation. not to beat a dead horse, but i believe the last update was we had was from late last summer. would you provide the committee and updated salary breakdown?

>> yes, we can do that. >> that's wonderful. we had eight conversation earlier about comparing the pay scale to that of the federal reserve. also looking at the cfpb pay scale as it relates to the gs pay scale. that is one of the dod uses come the fbi uses, the executive branch uses. do you have any objection to the cfpb moving to the gs scale that most other government entities are on? >> if congress deems that they wish to change our scale so that the act that currently speaks to comparability with the federal reserve is altered or modified in some fashion, we would, we would of course follow the laws that are set forth. >> that's wonderful. well, maybe we will see how much support we will have.

>> moving to the issue of how much is spent on the renovation on the oscars of supervision that we are building right now, i think you indicated that it was 50 million in the year 2000, 95 million and 2013 for a total of 110 million so far in dollars of the renovation of the. >> it is actually 95 million greatly change the number. originally it was 15 million for a total of 55 million. that number has now been changed. >> okay, do you anticipate any more budgeting necessary in 2014? or is 95 million going to be the mark? >> mark? >> we are at the early stages of understanding what cost to renovate a building. we need improvements, elevators, hvac, we are working with the

gse to understand that. >> are you aware that we have $17 trillion national debt? >> just. >> this was built in the 1970s. is that right? >> i believe that is correct. >> you may be surprised to learn that the rayburn building in which we sit today hasn't had a major renovation since it was built in 1965. on top of that, the building right across the street, the longworth building, it was built in 1933 and has not had a major renovation since 1933. but here before the cfpb, a building that is newer than ennui set in today, it deserves and 95 million-dollar renovation? to the tune of $90,000 for every single employee? how do you justify that when we owe $17 trillion in debt? >> congressman, we cannot run telephone lines or electrical

lines or computer lines. so we actually have at least two floors that cannot be occupied. a sort of standard office configuration. >> $90,000 per employee. $17 trillion in debt. well, i want to move to how much we're spending on storage of data collection. how much do we budget for the storage of data collection. >> what we budget is embedded in the we purchase for our networking structure. i can ask that the number be broken up and given to you. i do not have that number economy currently. >> are you setting money aside to build your own storage network? or are you using another agency network?

>> are you paying someone off-site to store the data? >> congressman, we are doing a couple of things. we are currently utilizing a federal agency treasury to provide us with network services. we are in the process of moving off of the network so that we can rent our own network and not be dependent upon another federal agency and we are also purchasing services and information from private entities as well. part of that is stored on our network. >> so if you would break this down, and let me be clear, how much we are spending to store data, whether it is internally or off-site, give me that number, and also how much the bureau is spending to secure that data. i yield back my time.

>> we now recognize the government for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again to our witness. thank you. have a great appreciation for your answers to these technical questions and i have taken the liberty of looking at the table of the organization to see if we could follow with it. it is a good reason to have our director there. i hear people asking some of the questions that typically i think a director would be more appropriate to ask. so i want you to relax, you are doing a great job, you are not the director, and he should be here. but with that, let me ask you this question. when i hear a lot of the

questions and we are talking about the funding and the finances and then i look at the outcomes of what you have done, the number of consumers that have been affected, the number of things you have been doing with those dollars. my question comes back to you if you are working with any of the other federal regulators, like the attorney general's office or state regulators to avoid any duplication efforts. that is the first part of the question. >> we are constantly working with all of our agency is that have a role to play in some cases that may be justice and in some cases that could be some of the other regulatory agencies. i believe there was a recent gao

review on duplication that we are looking very carefully to make sure that we are not duplicated mess. i think it is the case that we work closely and we try not to duplicate and we do that with a range of areas from purchasing services from other federal agencies, so as not to create a larger work force than necessary. two working carefully on things like monetary penalty funds, where we need to make sure that we understand the comments and concerns. >> when they go back to the question i started from the beginning. unlike the fdic or the federal reserve, certainly we have heard this, but your budget is statutorily capped. it is much smaller than the other budgets. but yet when we look at cost savings and what you have done in 2012, i was very pleased when i was a able to read, despite

your limitations, smaller budgets going into 2014 and 2013, that with those limitations, however, 6 million consumers are receiving refunds because of your 2012 enforcement actions. that you have also handled more than 150,000 consumer complaints since you opened. to be able to serve consumers. so how will one of your core missions be affected if your budget was to be severely capped so you could be able to use i.t. and communicate and increase those hundred 50,000 consumer

complaints. how would this affect the consumer's? >> how would it have an effect we'd have to go back and rethink how we deliver what we have been able to deliver to american consumers. i cannot tell you what i that would look like today. we'd have to go back and look at it carefully. >> you have been hit very hard on people, whether they resign or left. can you also tell me if you have hired people to fill the vacancies, on whether you have brought on experience that would help you in this thing. >> congresswoman, we have a very strong set of skills throughout the agency.

i think for all of those positions as we recruit to replace them, we have individuals that have been able to step in and acting capacities in such a seamless manner that we are still focused and can still deliver on our mission. >> thank you. >> i now recognize myself for five minutes. according to the annual employee survey, only 35.6% of employees agree or strongly agree that it takes steps to deal with a performer that cannot or will not improve as a poor performer. therefore, 64.4% are not satisfied that they will deal with a poor performer cannot or will not improve. is this a concern?

>> mr. chairman, we are a new agency. we are still getting our legs. it is where we can show some improvement. that is an area that we can work on in terms of managers. we are about to engage in a mandatory training for all of our managers. >> that goes to my next question. i understand the world-class training. the survey also asked employees how satisfied are you with the training that you received for your present job. only 38.8% of your employees agree to the training that they have received, that was

sufficient. a failure to train employees perplex management, does it not? >> mr. chairman, i would say at the time of the survey -- >> when was the survey? >> i believe it was in the spring or early summer of 2012. >> okay, so a year later you are telling me that you are getting around to the idea of training some people since 38.8% are satisfied with the training they receive. does this reflect poor management? >> mr. chairman, i do not think that it does. >> does it reflect good management? >> i think it reflects how we are learning to be a federal agency and we do our job. >> okay. how long has your agency existed? >> i believe that it is a little over 2.5 years. >> okay. so you ask the survey question about 20 months and to your

agency's creation than a and a year later you are talking about getting around some of the things you found in your own survey. so it is part of the national employee treasuries union. and he understanding that we could have from the hill, does this show troubles within the agency because of employee dissatisfaction and the fact that the managers will not deal with poor performers who will not improve? >> mr. chairman, i believe it simply demonstrates that our employees have exercised their right to be represented. >> why do people institute units. because things are going great other agency or because they have grave concerns that are not being addressed? >> i cannot speak to the motivation. >> okay, let me reference a

political article from may 15. it states that regarding the treasury in, it says that it was driven in large part that many employees would be forced to give up their private offices while they renovate their headquarters according to several people familiar with the situation. some of the staffers were reportedly livid about their current office space. with very thin walls do you understand that to be the case? >> mr. chairman, there only to private offices in my area we get along well and we do well. >> i understand your full stature.

>> this includes well-heeled ceos that have a number of individuals behind them while testifying. that is why some members have been interested about that. the reason for unionizing is not come as we understand it, it is not about office space. >> the point is a year after the survey was taken, you were trying to get around to implementing some of the necessary reforms. what we have a challenge with his trying to find the transparency so that we can hold you accountable. as we hold all of the other regulatory agencies accountable. and if the founding fathers intended with checks and balances. with that, we will go to mr. cleaver for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thank you. we have different opinions on

this. that is the way our system works. i do not think that our side has any kind of unique position. nor the other side. so this is the process that we go through. and i respect it and i respect those who have a different view. my wife is a psychologist. and i would be remiss if i did not follow up on the issue that was raised earlier about hiring psychologists. hiring them to work with the bureau in terms of trying to detect what people are interested in.

there are 300 million americans, and i am not sure that we have enough money to do a lot of focus groups that we need. you get beat up if you have a big travel budget going around doing focus groups. do you agree -- you won't get praise from doing focus groups. do you think, mr. agostini comedy would be praised for traveling around the country doing focus groups? >> mr. chairman, i really do not know if that would be the case. >> okay. you won't be. that will answer my own question. >> i'm trying to say that we are trying to figure out the best ways to help the citizens.

do you see your job as a you are actually in the business of preventing businesses from engaging in charging and unfair practices, in the world i am an ordained minister. and we try to help people and prevent them from being ripped off and heard. that is what we think. so do you see this as a mission? >> while we do not do focus groups and have not anticipated that, we have had a number of sessions throughout the country. in those listening sessions, what we have learned is that how we might do our jobs better because of the range of people who come to those listening sessions to provide us with feedback. consumers to industries. to the industry participants.

i think that our ability to do that and do the traveling and hear directly from them, it is important as we deliver our mission. >> is the existence linked to the idea that consumers have rights? >> i believe so, congressman. >> if that is the case -- and i think it is a case -- you know, here we are and we have never had an agency protecting the consumers in this industry and we are tardy. and it may not be perfect. but what we have done is perfect and i supported it, i was on the committee, i supported it very strongly and i still supported.

and i'm also respectful to people who did not think that they existed. i think it's important for us to try to get as much evidence out as possible. including how important is and i do not think it is an ideological agency. i don't think the agency is out promoting a political ideology. >> no, sir. we are striving to fulfill the mission that congress gave us with dodd-frank. >> did you vote on this? >> no, sir, i did not. >> okay. so you have nothing to do with the agency structure as it is. >> i joined the agency in november of 2011, congressman. >> okay. so the ranking member is the nearest person to me.

i followed him and i voted for it. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. the question about the funding sources for these agencies, it provides that the director has authorized amounts that he determines reasonably necessary to carry out that the authorities under the federal consumer financial law. and it further provides that the federal reserve system shall transfer the amounts requested under the cfpb director. are you aware of any other agency model in the entire administrative state and the entire federal government that is structured in a manner in

which the administrator or the head of the agency can unilaterally determine effectively the budget of that particular agency. >> mr. chairman, i'm not sure about this with the fdic. i do know that they have sources and resources that are outside of the appropriations process. so i would look there to try to answer your question for comparability. >> we testified earlier. we are receiving the agency spending from the federal reserve system that it allows us to focus on what we are doing. i would submit that focus comes only when the agency is actually accountable to congress for its

appropriation. in reference to american banker article and other articles, there has been much attention given to the fact that the cfpb has been losing its staff in a variety of other ways since its inception. one recent article reports that in recent months, more than a dozen senior officials have left the agency in interviews with american bankers, several officials offered differing reasons for the flood of departures. but many sided cultural clashes between the new agency and the regulators were they used work. can you just briefly offer an explanation for the rash of departure from your agency? >> congressman, i believe that those people let for a variety of reasons. >> okay, let's take one particular case. maybe you can illuminate why this may be happening.

the former number two of the agency, please explain whether the cfpb has confirmed the propriety of the consulting work this so closely follows the role as deputy director. >> congressman, i am not involved in the review that i would be happy to take that question back to our legal division. >> with respect to the gentleman and others, others with high-ranking positions what policies are in place with regard to a cooling-off period here in congress, former members of congress or staff here before they can engage in consulting and these activities as you have presumably understood.

does your agency have in place a similar cooling-off time restriction? >> congressman, i believe that we follow the laws and the rules with respect to ethics, but again, i would refer you to the legal division and have them provide you with an answer. >> i would ask that your legal division follow-up with the subcommittee on that question and also, are you aware of what we were making in terms of compensation of the agency and a second question, what is he making now is a consultant? >> mr. chairman, i have no idea, mr. congressman, i have no idea what he is making now. i believe his salary was a matter of record and i'm happy to provide that to. >> i would appreciate if you could follow up with the subcommittee. are you aware whether or not he worked with them to ensure that his transition is in compliance, not only what the rules, but with other executive branch ethics requirements?

and can you comment on that? >> i am not aware of the process by which he was afforded, if you will. and all of the ethics and i'm happy to take that back to the other divisions. >> are you aware of any departing staff taking advantage of information? >> congressman, i am not aware of that. >> okay, i yield back. >> the time has expired. the gentleman and the ranking member, the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think you have had a full day. but we will just take one more round and talk about a few more facts. >> it seems to me that there is concern about the turnover rate and i think it is a legitimate

question. >> the turnover rate for agency is slightly above 9%. it is 9.2 or 9.3%. i believe that it is almost exactly the same as the federal turnover rate for the preceding year. it is roughly about 9.3 or 9.4%. we appear to be experiencing attrition that is comparable to the federal government. >> is that the entirety of it? >> i have a number that differs that we are talking about the u.s. house of representatives. >> congressman, it would be the entire one. >> the house has a turnover rate of 26% and that would be slightly above the 9% that you

have. and there is some concern about whether people like you or not. i hate to get into congressional approval ratings. especially since like the rest of my colleagues, i want to continue to do what we do. but as i am looking at this, it is about 10% and that is pretty good for us come by the way. >> it may have been a little bit less. all of these things are great theater. but when you delve into the numbers, you can find rationale as they are. it has to do with the fact that young people are particularly mobile. they are off to bigger and

better things and we hire some of the best people to do better things. that is understandable. to be fair to you, we have to look a little bit deeper into what actually happens to it as it is. in closing, we have talked about accountability. it appears to me that you are exceedingly accountable. you have to consult with other regulators when making rules. is this true? >> yes, it is true. >> we have to do a cost benefit knossos. the director is supposed to do it, and it has to be politics in here. >> that is true. >> in that debate is someone from the agency testified about 35 times before congress, is

that about a roundabout number? >> that is the number that we have today, sir. >> 36 times. the rules are subject to judicial review, meaning that some entity that is accorded a certain ruling, it can be appealed and it can be appealed through the judiciary independent third party. is this true? >> i believe that is correct, sir. >> you have to reassess the rules periodically. is this true? >> that is correct, sir. >> i believe that they have to be reviewed. >> i do not know the frequency. >> can the regulations, can the rules be vetoed by other regulators? >> i believe that is correct. i believe they have that ability, sir. >> are you subject to external review by the omb?

>> i am not certain about that, sir. i would like to get back to you. >> all right. let's talk about the gao on it. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the ig associated with the fed, it cannot you as well. >> that is correct. >> congress has mandated an independent audit, this is something that we require. an independent audit. that means that you are not audited by another federal agency, you will actually bring an an agency or entity that is without the government. is this a fair statement? >> yes, sir. >> down on an annual basis? >> yes, sir okay, so you have accountability. the question is whether you would be able to maintain it. i yield back my time. >> pajama time has expired. i will deal to myself five minutes. do you believe your agency is

more accountable to congress and u.s.? >> mr. chairman, i cannot speak about the irs. i would echo many of the comments made by others with respect to the accountability reviews and those that we are subject to. the gao and independent audits, and then report to the appropriations committee we do feel that we are accountable and we welcome the accountability. >> i talked about the amount of contributions, 95% of them who have made contributions that were reported, they were given to president obama. given the irs scandal that we just heard recently, given the lopsided numbers, i wondered what safeguards are in place to ensure that there are no political bias in the

decision-making process. >> mr. chairman, i would offer the legal dimension that is better at comprehensibly answering that. >> that would be great. you can get us a response of safeguards that are in place to make sure that there is no political bias in the decision-making process since there is a difference of opinion of level of accountability. certainly some questions there. you had mentioned earlier that they have not had not spent up to its statutory cap. would you support a reduction in the statutory cap, or would you seek an increase or would you seek to keep the same level? >> mr. chairman, if congress decides that wishes to change our funding mechanism for the level of funding, we will abide by those changes. it is the case that for us to

proceed with the mission that congress has given us with something significant less than what we have to make some choices as to what aspects of the mission we could actually accomplish. >> i hope we do have that discussion. i think that there are some questions there again. especially in making sure is the mission really being done and why are so many people leaving, especially people who have regulatory experience and would come to the agency with that experience and they are leaving. i think there are questions like if that mission could be getting done. the point that i need to stress is why this matters to me. it matters to my small and medium size institutions who are afraid, they are absolutely afraid of what regulators are doing to them, specifically cfpb and a question of is there going to be accountability there.

how we comply. the people that are coming in and regulating us, do they have the experience or the training it seems to be justified since the staff is saying that they don't have the training. let me wrap up with this and i think this is something that you don't look more directly. they may use the consumer financial civil penalty fund to selectively compensate victims in cases that are independent, such as by another federal agency or even a private plaintiff. they can selectively determine whether to intervene in cases brought forward to compensate victims and the governance board and the chief financial officer have broad discretion to intervene selectively and matters. a question i have, mr. agostini, please explain your role and responsibilities with regard to the consumer financial penalty

fund and how that safeguards they are. .. that comment sets out rather precisely all of the expectations. >> let me wrap up. my time has almost expired. given the potential cases in which the cfpb hitting

intervene, such a tool could easily be abused for political or other purposes college your great? >> chairman, with the rules that are reflective in the public notice of rulemaking have believe that we have a very accountable and structured knowledge. >> my time is expired. we have a chance to get to the witnesses for a second round. like to think the witness for his testimony today. without question all members will have five days to submit written questions to the chair which will be forwarded to the witness. as the witnesses to respond as promptly as you're able. without objection all members will have five legislative days with which to submit. without objection this hearing is adjourned. >> coming up on c-span2, the massachusetts said debate between congressman ed markey

and republican david gomez fallen by vice president biden on white house gun violence, the consumer financial protection bureau. >> wednesday the prime minister from the british house of commons. prime minister david cameron takes questions from members live starting is 7:00 a.m. eastern. wednesday after prime minister, the british house of commons david cameron takes questions from members of the british parliament. you can see it live starting at 7:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> it was essential to remove from canada so of the united

states would have the opportunity to achieve its independence. a few people led by frank and recognize the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words for what i said a moment ago. the american achievement bill, two and a half million people, half a million slaves, and get the british to leave it to the french from the borders and the french help them evicted the british. manipulate the two greatest powers in the world. >> the emergence of the united states as a world power saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> now the house intelligence committee questions fbi director and foil terrorist plots.

you can see his entire testimony anytime at c-span.org. here is a look. >> as we stated, these programs are immensely valuable to protecting our nation and securing the security of our allies. the information gathered for these programs provided the u.s. government with critically still prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world. faa 7020 contributed in over 90 percent of these cases. at least ten of these events concluded homeland based threats and in the vast majority fisa contributed as well. a great partnership with the department of homeland security. but the real lead for domestic events is the federal bureau of investigation, and it has been our honor to work with the

director and deputy director. >> thank you. thank you, chairman and ranking member and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. the nsa and the fbi have a unique relationship. i just want to highlight a couple of concerns. in the fall of 2009 in as a using 702 authority intercepted an e-mail from a terrorist located in pakistan. that individual was talking with the individual located inside the united states talking about perfecting the recipe for explosives. through legal process in the individual was located in denver, colorado. the fbi followed and the new york city, letter executing a search warrant with the new york joint terrorism tax -- task force and found bomb making components. he later confessed to a plot to

bomb the new york subway system with backpacks. also working with fisa business records, the nsa was able to provide a previously unknown number of one of the coke conspirators. this was the first foil the al qaeda plot directly from pakistan. another example, nsa utilized 702 authority with modern and known extremist from yemen. this individual was in contact with an individual of the united states. he and other individuals that we identified through fisa that the fbi apply for, it will to detect a plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. the fbi disrupted and arrested these individuals.

also, u.s. citizens living in chicago, the fbi received intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 mom by a tax response will for the killing of over 160 people. also, nsa 3702 coverage of 88 affiliated terrorist found that he was working on a plot to bomb a danish is fair brought office that had published a cartoon depictions from the prophet muhammed. in fact, later confessed to personally conducting surveillance with the danish newspaper office. he and his co-conspirators were convicted of the spot. the fbi had opened an investigation shortly after september 11th. we did not have enough of formation, nor did we find links to terrorism, so we shortly thereafter close the investigation.

however, the nsa, using business record tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist nativity. thank you. patty. >> the massachusetts senate went through one last debate before the june 205th special like sen. democratic congressman edward markey and republican businessman and former navy seal gabriel gomez faced off in boston. the candidates are vying to fill the seat left by former senator john kerry. this debate is an hour. >> the special affection for the united states senate. good evening, everyone.

boston university college of communication. this is the final debate before the special election to fill the senate seat formerly held by john kerry. we have seen the candid it's. if you have been watching television yes seven is seen them on the air. we welcome the democratic candidate and the republican candidate. the goal over the next hour is a focused exchange of ideas that would give voters a chance to see where the candidates stand and some of the issues facing the commonwealth and the nation. and we invite you to join the conversation, join us on twitter . masen. our first round of questions this evening does with the campaign and domestic issues. here is how it works. i will pose a question to a specific candidate. that candid it's 45 seconds to answer, and then we will open it

up for of the three men's conversation. by coin toss we will begin tonight with mr. gomez. nice to see you. you offer yourself as a new kind of republican. you point to your business, yet you have given voters a few details. you're running an ad that says it is about trust. bell recipe will serve -- how are people supposed to where you as a candidate and just you without knowing more about your record in business? >> thank you for watching tonight. an opportunity before the election. this is. i think this election is going to be about who the people are going to just. people before party politics. right now it's not about all that stale ideas. it's about new, fresh ideas. more and partly it's about party

politics. we have that. you have an over burden on the citizens. you have a fiscal mismanagement, and you have an all-time high of partisan politics which has led to a complete failure. spent 37 years in the congress during the rest the can with his ideas and with his ability down there. but the reality is that building a trust as opposed the party and politics. >> and right to come back to the question because, frankly, you didn't answer it. out come back oppose it again. >> thank you. thank yo having this very important form. mr. gomez says he is running a a new kind of republican but he is the oldest and stay list republican idealist. he says that the reforms are too

tight. you have to get tough. considered voting for a supreme court justice which would overturn roe v wade. i would not. he says that heat things billionaires were paid too much. i don't think that there. i think that they have to pay their fair share. mr. gomez says that he would not turn them into weapons of war. set on top of that you're right he still has, who he worked for as he brags about his business acumen, and i do believe that the people of massachusetts have a right to know what he did in the private sector. >> let me come back to the question. how are voters opposed to trust you as a candidate without knowing more? help us out here. >> every single day meet people

and having the honor. they know that of a first-generation american. they know that i have the honor to serve nine years in the military in the navy. one of only two people. they know that i earned my way to a harvard business and then know that i earn my way to a successful career. they know that, you know, we provide sector employees such as futures spot buying, police officers, and a lot of others such as president obama. we benefit. so i think the people of massachusetts have a clear idea of what i have done as a service , a pilot, as seal, one of an elite team in the navy in of workig companies and the private sector. >> thank you. again, we're still waiting to find out who you work for, what

are the names of those clients? it's important. my record is completely transparent. people know every vote that i've cast of the years. but with not -- with mr. gomez we still don't know who his clients were, who worked for. i think that is going to be important because we have to know whose side he is going to be on. the voters know which side i'm going to be on, but he lays out his clients, who we worked for over the years, and i think that will give the voters of messages is a real insight. in terms of how he will conduct itself on the floor of the united states senate. >> to you. this brief conversation. you just called him a tired, all republican. are you not a tired, all democrats after 37 years and house of representatives and now you not a lockstep? >> well, profession is where you're going. so mr. gomez, he is back with

these tired of republican ideas. he accepts them. and i think that is a reflection of who he will be with down in the united states senate. so on the question of a woman's right to choose, don't hold them back. yes, we need them. insuring the wealthy pay their fair share, absolutely. answering the social security is not cats, i'm going to be identified. our state in their country. so this is really a question. whose side you want. you are you going to fight? were you going to stand up for? and my record is very clear. i think of the course of this campaign we have proved him mr. gomez says he is going to fight for. it is ultimately what the voters want to know. they cast the correct vote on election day. >> this campaign.

the most egregious misrepresentation on your part, congressman. >> thirty-seven years. in know, you think that what we need to do is continue raise taxes. thirty-seven years to you raised taxes almost 300 times. as a matter of fact, is there a time when you went in your part @booktv against a party? does of the solution to the fiscal network is to continue to follow. thank you. 680 billion. abcaseventeen chilean and they watch. those are the old. now, you continue. this is the clear about where i stand. it's been millions of dollars of your money and outside money. and a woman's right to choose,

however, that said, a single line that will create a woman's right to choose. and you continue to misrepresent. your the one that voted for the wall street bailout. not me. the one the voted for the wall street executive to get a billion dollars. you're also the one who recently have fund-raisers at fannie mae and freddie mac or the main reason that we have the wall street fell year. we continue to misrepresent the points. i have said from day one that is you're a senior receiving medicare and social security, close to retirement, nothing is done to change. and did you continue to put out, the congressman before the debate. >> we will continue with the give-and-take. legged, long stretch. let this segment three. thank you. >> again, he said that you could

consider voting for the supreme court justices could overturn roe v. wade. as a your words. i'm not misrepresenting here. it is what you said. you said it. too tight. they have to be rollback. and then you misrepresent my position. i have voted for $1 trillion with the tax cuts. over the last 15 years. even as i fight to take away tax breaks that "companies have a tax breaks for multinationals the shift -- ship jobs and insure that billion as pay their fair share. everyone should pay higher taxes. to me at think it's pretty clear whose side each one of us is standing for. you can continue to try to wiggle out of what you said in some of these debates, but i think the record is very clear. >> let's move. the nsa.

did they go too far? >> i have a unique perspective. the honor to serve in the navy. a navy seal. serving on the front lines. i think there's a fine line between our national security in their personal privacy. and what is concerning to me is that in all of these scandals you get the irs, the justice department, benghazi commend you also have an nsa which on the surface unless there is an imminent threat to our national security threats at the highest level is not too bright. and the problem is the people automatically distrust. why? because you have real politicians that politicize everything. if this was a republican president and guarantee from his actions the last 37 years,

jumping up and down to asking for an investigation to try to figure out what happened. >> the and as a surveillance too much too far? >> they have to be tough on terrorism. very tough. but we cannot trample on the constitution. as the nsa and other agencies gather up information, we have to make sure that there are protections that are put in place that is sure that dennison americans. when i also know that there are terrorists out there. we have to make sure that they have the capacity to gain access to the information which they need. and so i think he should be prosecuted. the same time you have to have this debate about where the line is between security and privacy.

think that is a debate the country is now in the middle of, and i believe it we can do it while ensuring that they have the information they need. >> by his own words. the trader. >> a cross the line in this to be prosecuted fully. >> voters in massachusetts and around the country. our unemployment rate is below the national average. that doesn't tell the old story. despite having one of the best educated work forces in the country, job creation over the last few years in massachusetts has been near the bottom. you took a stab at it with telecom city. the action of the stories that appear of the last couple of days, you blame a lot people for that. the bear any blame for that now producing some 500 jobs?

>> they banded together said makes 200 polluted acres. there were just not really producing jobs. they give up their sovereignty, and right now they're out three times more jobs than before we began the project, four times as much tax revenue coming in. moreover, that was the partnership. so it was mostly state money. >> it occurred during that time. moreover we now have biotech, the regional headquarters, we have a huge residential project, and more is coming. so they now have three times more jobs. >> mr. gomez. >> i think this is a great example of somebody who has

sector experience an average seven massachusetts. analyzing and opportunity in not realizing that. was not trying to create what he said it would. there has not been a single job for the internet creative of the project. now, you know, you stand up here and you give all these great dancers and you say you will be doing x and y. he had 37 years to give something done. we still don't have immigration reform. thirty-seven years to do that. reform social security and medicare. thirty-seven years to do that. what makes you think that over the next 17 months of the next 37 years in a deal to do something the haven't done in 37 years. continue to tell the people of massachusetts that you have done this, this command that but the reality is you have 37 years to get these important things done.

>> correctly. >> i'm asking -- >> keep this moving. >> seventeen months and i will keep my word and do what i say. i don't need 37 years. he had messed him. how many jobs were created. he is running as a businessman. yes to question and he did not answer it. we need to know who you work for , what kind of jobs were created. we still have not received that answer. the mayors of these three cities . the jobs and have been created. >> if you knew what private equity was a new that we don't have clients. we have investors and that's all to they are.

in national congressman. that is our investor. we don't have clients. if you want to compare resonates among let's compare the dead. i will compare military record years in a more than happy to compare my last 16 years in the private sector i that the u.s. created value and jobs. >> of tell you one thing. president obama would not be an investor in amnesty international if we're racking up a trillion dollars in debt. >> we still don't know what he did. we still don't know which client specifically worked for, which results specifically got for any of these people who he is just mentioned. he is still refuse to make his own private sector record public so that we can determine whether or not of those things you just said are, in fact, true. >> this is exactly -- he is bearing exactly what is as are in misrepresenting. we don't have plans, congressman. i don't know how many times i have to tell you. we have investors.

president obama would not be an investor in throughout one of the best investors and private equity in the whole country of the last ten years. anyone out there in the state of massachusetts. remained a canadian company into an american company. that is thousand jobs. >> i think we have worked this over. four minutes left and i want to even out questions to make sure you all get one more. the ski pants and short. on affirmative action that supreme court is about to rule on important affirmative-action cases and they're is a debate in the united states over whether affirmative action should be re economic based. do we need affirmative action jack. >> at think that everybody should have the equal opportunity to achieve the american dream. i think that if we continue down

the path we are on and the congress -- ever on why the chance of the american dream. people that are not socially demographically disadvantaged should have a chance and will need to do is make sure that they have a chance. if that entails giving them an extra benefit that think we should because there are people right now that are in schools that are failing. i think there are a lot of kids out there, people that don't have the opportunities that other people laugh. we continue down this path that the congressman wants to end it will have those opportunities irrespective of whether we have affirmative-action. >> affirmative-action, do we need it? >> set up think we have reached the day have are we can say that waste is not play it -- races not play a role of mother not people are able to advance the language of the country that they came from does not play a role in how far they can advance in society. we have not reached that day yet. that's the day we should aspire

to. these people, their access may be different, but their aspirations are the same. we are working very hard to say the race is not a factor, i just don't agree with it. we have to keep affirmative action there so that we ensure that we do give protections to those racial groups that do in fact need a little bit of help so that they can maximize their god-given abilities. >> three topic areas. the third one for you, taxes. he released the use of tax returns show an effective tax rate of less than 20%. that is not much different than the 21%. a typical rate would be about 30%. you're criticized mr. gomez for not paying his fair share. have you paid yours? >> i have paid my fair share. most of the reason my taxes alone, just the mortgage deduction. as a way in which my rate goes down. in fact, mr. gomez says that he

put the mortgage interest deduction on the table to be cut i think that is just a huge mistake. millions of americans, over 1 million in massachusetts alone benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. that is the way that most americans are able to afford a home, able to protect their family coming able to move up along in our society, and i disagree. consider appealing or reducing the mortgage interest deduction for home owners are state. >> this is about as hot. yellow or red in your system but you love people that make more money than you to pay irate the new. if you really do believe in the rule that he should be willing to pay a higher rate in your assistance. this sounds like you believe he

paid a fair rate. i think we should have a fair tax system. the more you make the more you should have to pay off. melson think we need to have a comprehensive tax reform. when these reform the corporate tax rate and reform the personal tax rate. close all the loopholes. but everything in there come a carried interest, everything in there on the corporate, the royal subsidies dolerites, corporate jets to hollywood tax breaks. and then will we do is we take the best ideas. >> quickly. >> i would have the mortgage tax deduction at the very bottom. i go in there with an open mind knowing that the weight seven initiation @booktv this is a leader in the private sector. >> please. >> the mortgage interest deduction would not be in the table for me and it is for mr. gomez. would not get the mortgage interest deduction. he makes sense time -- ten times more than a minute per year and pays pretty much the same tax rate. we do need tax reform. we have to make sure that those are in that wealthy group to pay

their fair share. >> fd as a follow-up. are your tax returns, your home axises redacted. we can understand why you'd know what your street address perhaps, but can he tell us tonight what state is listed? >> is massachusetts. it was the county made that mistake. i lived in the same house for 64 years. so it's been my lifelong residents and will be for as long as i live. make no question about that. it is massachusetts. >> let's call that the end of round one. thank you. round two of this evening's conversation gives a candid it's a chance to question each other every 45 seconds off -- 30 seconds for question, 45 seconds for the other candidates to respond. up to two minutes of discussion. we will begin this route with a question for mr. gomez.

>> congressman, you have been down there for 37 years in the continue to believe that we need to keep taxing everybody. over 37 years you voted to raise taxes almost 300 times. can you name once many of gone against their party and not voted to raise taxes? >> thank you for that q you for. my answer is quite simple. i have voted to reduce taxes on middle-class residents of roasted in their country by $1 trillion over the last 15 years. and i have voted to increase taxes on auto companies, multinationals the ship jobs overseas on billionaires'. the point is to the we have to keep the tax system fair. that is where tried to do through my entire career, and have done so in a way that ensures that we don't allow for a huge tax break to be put on the books that can result in

tremendous pressure being put on medicare, medicaid, education programs. then republicans say they must be cut because of the revenues which have been drained out of the economy. so i did not vote for those for pelican tax breaks there were going to the richer and the zero companies and the multinationals because our country cannot afford the. >> adjust to be clear, and 37 years -- >> you could not find one time to your is your party? but you have voted to raise taxes, you know, medical device companies here in massachusetts and devoted to raise taxes on senior citizens on their social security benefits. >> mr. gomez is the one he says that he can split chain cpi. the social security, what a chain saw is to a tree. the issue of who stands where on these tax cuts.

he's the one he says he would not consider raising taxes and billionaires'. that's all you have to know because the programs for the people that then have to be cut because billionaires' are not paying their fair share. >> we are trying to equalize time and make sure that you each get to questions to each other in this segment. >> mr. gomez, you oppose a ban on assecamul weapons to my capacity magazines. those assault weapons that have upwards of 100 bullets that could be shot within two minutes . where would a civilian need a weapon where they could shoot a gun with 100 bullets and that in under two minutes? >> you know that here in massachusetts we have a ban on assault weapons. i respect that. and i think that's fine. but you also know that you have

completely misrepresented my devews on gunle-ontrol. i support expanded background checks chart congressman. are going to -- i'm ashamed verily for republicans that voted for this expanded have ackground check. only one of us can go down and actually get this bill passed. restored to take proper summer to get the republicans on board and the conservative democrats on board. did you continue to try -- and the only person here who is craven enough, the only political canada to use and its ambassador for political gain. that says a right there. you will do anything and say anything to get elected. >> us with you been dsmang for 7 years. >> where would you you considern that you consider hundred bullets and just two minutes? pc support background checks. that's a conservative democrat. a consethe cative repfor rlicanm penntax slvania.

what's in massachusetts? reroute the lacquers. we of the leaders. we won for the low pressure because they can come out from new hampshire from other states into massachusetts. a gun be used by a civilian deccan shooter hundred votes and under to match. >> once again, you take an issue that is emotional and divisive and you know that we should be focusing on what actually -- are want to ban all weapons from the wrong people, and you know as the way to solve a problem and make our schools, communities, and kids safer. did you want to be craven enough to go out there and use the nd town masker for political gain. you understand the is only one where we will make our schsolls and kids safer and that is to pass the expanded background check. you were gsmang to need more republicans and democrats on board. only one of us is bshiartisan by thisperienused. go down and work across the out.

that's our report to make our cooreunities safer. if you go down and nothing changes. we will be the exact same bcrat and we will have expanded back projects. >> they're want to make sure you read it or question. mr. gomez. >> sure. congressman, you have been down here for 37 years. believe that congressman and senator should be term limited? >> you just had john mchuseain campaign for the three weeks ago did you ask him to leave the senate? mitch mchuseonnell from kentuck, the republican leader in the senate raising money for youum3 across the country. did you ask mitch mcconnell to tell him it's time for thew pto leave the senate as part of their ability to get support from them to help you in this cae teaiimi? no, you did not.

he did not sell and the you don't think you belong to the senate. >> so from my perspective this just becomes a question of whether or not you understand what's going on. whichever one of those winds. so the oughy issue should really be what we're going to be doing in the united states and that. events in the interest of the people of massachusetts. >> you didn't answer the question. rex's to be frank gutted tell senator john mccain that he should be terminated. you wish to you're running against mcconnell or even 0,421st got down thert a with the reality is running against me. one who is not afraid to tell a party when they're wrong, wrong and ioreigration, cusiong then marriage to more rnase to the have ackground checks torre ande endevronment and global warming.

i'm going to go down there and try to make my party better and look across the aisle and work with the democrats as well. nothing's cusiong to change if e wins this election. we will have the same dysfunction. >> mr. gomez, mr. gomes did not tow john mccain is to be a last turn. he did not tell mchuseain rwho now. he should be finishing his career at the end of this term. >> he just said to favor you calling a liar?

>> is going to tear down there and change. business as usual. the republican party, taking away a woman's rigys to choose. ms. the republican party does not want to tax the weamulhy aht s asrther. >> recovered that. >> does not a new republican. that's an old-fashioned -- >> we covered that. very quickly, does that cover session happen? >> it did. that's fine. that's what you're been doing. he's been. [silenused] he called me a liar. only line a little bit. >> need to move on. >> thank you. >> the boston globe hbli a big story. mr. gomez was on the board of directors for two companies, including one which was in

massachusetts which laid off people and then send those je,s overseas. and then federal assistance had to come in to help those workers. my question, mr. gomez says, were those the only to companies that he served on the bcrard? wasn't there are way to keep the jobs here in massachusetts? >> congressman, this is another example of someone having private sector experiedine and acask ally dsmang something. you know, that company that you mentioned, they service the ecatomotive industryou d and dug that time the automotive industry was going through the deprescon. there's a lot of growth. so that is obviously ready operation grew. k a you lsolk at today, economic cycles rebound. stern a lot better. that compaht would not be around tootiy. we preserve the job, the retired

from of a police offiusedr and firefi loters in the future. also for president obama. so let us say, i think that every achuseumulatedo fmr.trilln debt held think you would be an investor. this is an mated, its arithmetic. >> the boston globe, a couple of reporters or just chacng to try to get the answers to these questions. he'd just slammed the door on them not answering questions. but you can't slam the door on the voters in massachusetts of gidevng them the answers. everyone knows this three by five card the judge said people here, shifts the je,s overseas, and then have the federal government pick up the tab for those people were left behind.

everyone knows. the company's, the board of directors he served on. other je,s as the shi the doo to overseas. a way to keep those jobs here. maht companies try very hard to keep je,s here. >> thirty seconds. >> thirty secondire. >> on the bcrard of kir reand. the public self. now, over green solar. 800 je,s overseas. another compaht. >> you have to have a correct

response to this. open up another topic. >> that was just wrong. >> you each have two questions to each other, ruvering about eqnd the springboards conversation. my focus is dcarense and foreiii policy and will begin this round with mr. markey. syria is the topic. the u.ns. civil war has cost more than 90,000 lives. >> nneed ed that they used chemical weapons and they're now sending small arms and aoreunition. how do we know w that yre sendig guns to the right people and are we on a slirepublicaery slope? >> that's a great questiobet we have to be very careful because we enter into this nd sure that there has been a very careful vetting of in the

insurgent group that the united states starts. groups within that country. it mwho iys come have ack to hs both in that country and around the world. from my perspective and in those pubrcervestanuseds should amerin troops be on the ground and syria. that would be an historic mistige. there's going to be a no-fly zone, it has to be totally in codinert. the united states should not be acting unilaterally. with rions we have to make sure they don't come back to haunt us the way the merger hbli been in wn loanistan the 1980's came bk to haunt us as the tell baena the 21st cenask ry. >> is a critical parlly

is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world. what we need to do rwho iys nos make sure that we align ourselves with the rebel group that is investing in dem. >> yran't and peace in the middle east. that will iso has te the irania. ri lot now you have the recemdeg fighter planes from russia, intelligenused. what we need to do is mige sure and providing arms and humanitarian aid to the rebel group that will best promote peace and democracy in the middle east to be the last thing on the ground. that as a unique perspective on making sure we donto b commit trsolivi carelesow y. i do think we need to have as many coalition partners as possible okeep ideally with the u.n., but that may not be realistic. partners as possible. we cannot have the rebel group not ariced with the ability the fi lot have ack because otherwie

there will be left to slaughter. >> theioure is new elected leadr said to be a moderate, open to discussion. do you believe? >> ever read about ho h. he is obviously cannot and said the right things. is just like precdent reagan said. trust and then verify. we have not had gsold re has tionships witho f979. there mission is to annihilate is zero. i'll let ho h -- >> they sob h that ys a moderat. we also after robert that the ayatollah's run the country. so what kind of disyou ession aa a tommy this is leader might have still remains to be seen. we should beeoery skeptical. to continue to tell them we will not allow them to have a nuclear we suons program.

we don't want in destabilizing as real. we have to continue to put pressure on, but we should be talking to them just to make sure that thau kno, rwe are serious and that if they ended the nuclear weapons program and thauolle other weapons into the region that there would be a basis for an agreement. >> mr. gomez, 48 does american said been killed or wounded. that is killed and wounded. the ut dollars on these two wars. has this sacrifice and lives and treasure been worth it? >> i donto b thit w this shoulde a political question. at a lot of friendire that of them got killed. some of them got injured. he last thing we need to do is make this a political issue. we went in with the intellwho id we hbli pectin. with the intelligence we had back then

and so given the intelligence we had it was the right thing to do, but it is easy. >> we know that the war was premised upon ally. dick cheney knew that there was no nodlear weapons program. that was the premise for going in. thau knew that there was no nuclear weapons program. with regard to whether not it was bush, i thit w it's gsmang o take years to know that. we can already see great destabilvesation. we can see friction eopsosed. hopefully they can work in no way that ddess iarl3 atve d i. >> yrats for the unified goverr weent.

there has been an announcement that the tal to ban and is now going to be nions government in afghanistan. we still donto b know how that s going to turn out, whether or not these will become places of real stabilii , the midrore of the civil war that had an american involvement for a brief amount of to he and long histor, but that still is history yet to be written. >> a follow-up questiobet what have we learned? >> i think we learned is that every country out there and every culask re has dipferent histories. a general view in different belicars. we can instill our exact idea. no one will align 100 percent with us. the administration has gone fgong on the midrore east. believe we should have pulled out and i believe we should be elling out of afghanistan. what i don't agree with is that

cargrounctively shown here and. as the worst thing a you could do. i believe we should be pulling out, but you don't televise and telegraph our intention. thau would just h3 atd out and ask rn back to the area of instability a was before. >> psmant mblie. >> well, we have learned how hard it is to impose any kind of democracy upon any country. hey're gsmang to wreck their own determinations. and i thit w that this should be learned by s, especially with regard to sending ground troops and to syria. the make sure that we do pull out of afghanistan. we do have to a tige care of all theeod toerans to go home. many of them are still not being served well by our medical nd i, our job retraining programs, the kind of care which

we go to thoseeod toerans. so i thit w we should be out of afghanistan and meet the timetable that was agreed to detericine the ant and the united states. this to he for th i to fwho iure out a wob of miging our country work >> joanne is apparently condodting several ewas iot tege geneainst the united states. reports that there is a special n'tber as be nice unit that has to leaor systems. what should we do about it p of the revelations underyou et e u.s.? >> china is trying to penetrate american industry and military i pass through the house representatives, iliny built jut hree years ago to guard the electricity grid of our country.

the same thing is now h supening with the chinese. they're not taking what is the developed by the creative communii and they are in fact making those birds on their sorrow with a lever which is not pay with american lighor. that's an advantage we have. china is at the top of the list of those that would seek to use cyber. >> turn and server security. that's where the military has now established the sever command. there got utenthere and penetrated the military installations.

our perspective, when need more coriente our server warfare. it is like a live talk residential security record. the one devoted. a bwho i part of the component f keeping a roman secure. armies to think that chit te is the nominee to f paus on. china is the only one that has cyber warfare capabilities. eastern europe and rusca as well. >> homeland security first and then i want to come back to the question. >> he keeps saying that i did not vote for the dk home has nd security. i keep telling him that i did not vote for it because that bill of was gsmang to tige away the rights of the first responders to work for the part of common security to nions

with health care benefits, the wage benefits, the emplobilies f the dk seyou erity. it will be running into buildings to protect as terrell hebliing toward bonds and have a right to negotiate for their own families to protect thewe do ons re nmilies. with regard to other homeland security issues, just last week of work to with the rk from new york to pass an amendment to ensure that lives are not put back on passenger planes are passed on before the house. and i got to chit te it would ps the hell. we will was in fact card and begins the cyber aher ack from e chinese on our country. >> understood. let's look to the windshield. what do we do about what china is ded ong? >> policy has to be that we put this at the top of our negotiating last?

>> we have a lot of leverage. we have military levergenee, economic levergenee over the chinese. they need our help. they need assistaphe. thau need partnerships as they go forward in the years ahead, and receptive mige sure that we beplon nions extract from them protections for the american economy and the american security the rwho i an now being compromised. >> it has been mblie harder. china on this more dour ht of te u.s. than any other country up there. the fact we hcape grown the dout enighle chit te to basically on more than half the nine states. reduused that dour hlly ip we gd to down the path china

will continue to remain in the upper hani >> it was balanusedd by bill clinton in 2001. george bush and republicans took over. to wars that were not paid for, and the casino was set up on wall streeuils with stolin optis , the residue of derivatives to credit the fall swaps that led to a c3 at has ingse of our econo a. >> what i come from from the military, leader get out of the way. you oaht to keep b has ming somebody else. that's accountability. the gd to things down our go do. he can scape some the else's fault.

the fact is you just showed an oreample where you b has me othr people. >> cutting social security. >> ped ont mblie. point mblie. >> i want to make sure that we equalize the number of questions . drones as the topic. decision making it the highest levels. >> oversees the pre cdent will have more discretion. service which decides they're ighsolutely target for drones. i think the president has done a good job of guarding those people overseas. in the united states here internally i would be very hesitant andeoery,eoery cdevtios ighout even ucng drone started u.s. citizens here. i think that rand pdevl mblie a great point when he did the

filibuster a few months ago. as a result the a precdent to dieditlose what his intentions were. but, as i said, overseas ighso3 mtely change sides. >> drand s strbuses, lo hits. >> we have to make sure our national interest is a stake, no other way of apprehending the individual with the drones strike. domestically w to cre ged ong te 20,000 drones lessons of the next ten years here within our country and thau hcape to mige sure that as they take off that they are accompanied by privan't protections for every american it is that could be this by on america's here domestically as well. >> i sob there is a rapid advancement. more and more law enforusedments is is ucng drone is. and just like anything else community have to be careful

ighout exactly what it will be used for. the nsa is a good example of how epterbearing and overreaching this gepterr weent can beat him. very hesitant. >> one minute l-lly commenlly on pri cin't. ..

>> i've got four young kids. if we continue down the path of the last 37 years our kids will not have a chance to achieve their dreams for a ride believe this election is about the future, not the past. fresh and new ideas, not old and stale ideas, i believe we need to put the people before party in politics because right now our country is much better than its politics. i want to make our congress as good as the american people. each generation should pass of a better america than when it started. 37 years is enough time. i ask you to give me 17 months to see if i have kept

my word. if i have, you can reelect come if i haven't, then vote me out. i think congressman markey has had 37 years to lead and look what we have. we have dysfunction and failure and discourse. >> mr. gomez is running with stale and old republican ideas. he opposes the assault weapon ban on high-capacity magazines. he says he can spoke for the supreme court justice which would overturn roe v wade and the wealthy are paying too much but that puts pressure on the social programs that have to be cut. he says though wall street reforms are too tough but we know what happens when all street does not have that. also he could cut social security on senior in-house

-- seniors i want to run for the senate for the 21st century to make sure it is more educated, healthy educated, healthy, prosperous and more fair than the 20th century. i think every family and every child should be able to maximize all god-given abilities for i will go to washington to protect to ensure every american regardless of income or race maximizes all of their human ability. >> thank you. that is the final debate and a reminder the election day june 25th. your vote counts. turn now we will be counting your votes around the boston media consortium.

>> let us not be blind to our differences but the means by which those differences can be resolved. and if we cannot and now our differences at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. >> wherever they may live and therefore as a free man i take pride in the words. [speaking german] [cheers and applause] >> you see a much different president kennedy than the first year that 1963 you see a different one again who at the same time is preparing the crowd and with his nuclear test ban treaty that was agreed to in the fall of 63 while at the same time

also building up defenses and seeking a way to peace with the american university speech. >> good afternoon. i never expected to be standing in this ramage reducing the vice president the same way and never expected to be a victim of gun violence. about one year ago i was a few hours south of having a

bicycle with camping supplies after a cross-country bicycle trip by had been planning for several years as my best friend ethan. we had ambitions to live and travel abroad after college but we realized we had so much to learn about our own beloved country in reid decided the best way to do that is to spend the summer traveling through middle america of towns and farms to me every day americans from all walks of life. we dipped our wheels in to the atlantic one year ago and 750 miles later we arrived in aurora colorado where we bought tickets to the midnight for mayor of the summer blockbuster we had talked about i still remember that night of the. i was hit in the head and torso by a shotgun blast before fully realize what was happening. i've listened to the report of the assault rifle as warm

blood rushed out of my neck. i remember hearing ethan yelling at the 911 dispatcher. he was not wanted. our host and his ticket we bought was shot in the head. a winding and unpredictable cross country journey led us to one of the biggest mass murders in the country. i was ready to die just graduated with a fulbright grant to teach english and russian and if nothing else a cross-country trip to finish if nothing else. but not my choice to live that night no more than it was anyone's choice to die. but it nearly missed my brain and arteries and heart. the magazine jammed giving me time to escape out the back emergency exit to get

to an operating room less than 30 minutes later. ethan escaped and our host survive without serious damage to her brain. i woke up two doors down from her a few hours after surgery. with a renewed sense of vitality. my optimism was tempered slightly to place my experience i was shocked to learn more than 30 americans are murdered and almost 50 commit aha suicide every single day with the gun not only the sons and mothers and daughters and friends and neighbors and survivors left behind. i spent a month and that have experience in the best of the country has to offer but confronted by the worst. that is not just in urban issue nor king or minority issue it is an american issue to affect us all. i deterred my plans to

travel abroad and i had the great fortune to meet vice president bided were rejoined mayor bloomberg investors who lost a campaign to call on congress to pass legislation on gun violence. a minority in the senate has blocked the legislation but the president and vice president commitment to this issue has not faded one bit and on behalf of all the survivors of gun violence i ask them for their continued leadership from this issue today marks the important step. ladies and gentleman the man who has helped to lead the conversation and the vice president of united states of america. joe biden. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you very much. if you one reason for optimism, you are looking at a. if you want a great education. [laughter] but this remarkable young man absolutely remarkable and i look forward to working with you to finish this job. good luck. it is good to see so many faces. i had hoped we would have assembled this auditorium earlier. i hoped we would have assembled here a couple months ago celebrating the first of a number of victories that we will have and having the congress, 44 of our colleagues over 45 voted no on a rational, a

simple, straightforward, ext ension of the background check system that already exist in this constitutionally permissible. but the first thing i want to say before i begin talking about the specific subject matter today is we have not given up. janet napolitano has not given up. eric holder has not given up. richard blumenthal has not given up. congressman mike thompson has not given up and speaker of the connecticut house has not given up. i just wish we had the success that you had in connecticut with your governor and legislature. and the mayor of santa monica has now given up nor has one of the leading advocates for rational gun policy is not here today.

because she is fighting another fight, a fight we have her in our prayers. she is fighting lung cancer. she will be that and will come back to help us beat the gun lobby that has prevented the rational action from happening. six months ago the president and i stood in this very room joined by the victims of gun violence violence, parents, teachers, law enforcement and others as we made a simple promise to the american people. we said, we will do everything that we can, everything in our power to reduce gun violence in this country. at the time the shock and horror and the massacre at sandy hook was fresh in everyone's mind. only four weeks earlier, the entire country was turning on their television to learn that 20, first graders were killed in the classroom six

staff and education personnel had died trying to save them. the entire country is a very personal means of communication and you sit there in your living room or the kitchen and the associated directly with the person on the screen and everyone who watched knew what was going on and i am confident they wanted children and imagine what it would be like if they got the phone call remember a the party not? the parents not knowing what was happening? every mother and father or a grandparent. you could feel it in your bones. what would you do have that than my baby?

moms called their sons and daughters and not because they live close but they needed to hear their voice. even the grown child. it was distinctive. dad's talk to so little babies into bet a little tighter and sat there a little bit longer because you wanted to hear the rhythm of their sleep. so'' the president and i have not given up. of our friends in the house and senate have not given up. we pushed congress to pass common-sense legislation and the majority of the senate stepped up to say that makes sense. but because of the invocation of a rule, a

converted filibuster requiring 60 votes everything in order to get a vote, we lost. 41 republicans and four democrats voted bell. i am confident some of them i know for a fact some of them now wonder if that was a prudent approach. so a the president when he stood here that first day said he would do everything within his power power, constitutional power to change the ethic of gun violence in america. and not just that he would fail we put together the team i just mentioned the interview took 128 groups of stakeholders to the nra to the brady group and police officers. we came up with a list of

the irrational things that should be done. but that is not all the president was talking about. on that day six months ago of the president said he would do everything in his individual power under the executive power of the presidency to take those actions that did not require congressional authority to deal with that problem. although we have yet to succeed in the house and the senate, but we will. he move forward with what was within his power with executive actions he could take and today i can report he announced 23 executive jens -- actions in 21 have been completed or there has been major progress made to a total completion. and we're on track to finish

the job. for example,, strengthening the existing back and check system and one of the things everybody found out is that there is an awful lot of people in states all around america who won the constitution to disqualify to own a weapon. yet their names are held by the states in which they live in those names have not been communicated through this national system. now under the constitution constitution, we're not able to dictate that a state take certain action. so we begin to inquire why those states, 17 of them was the information not getting into the system?

why were those names not in the system? all kinds of reasons but one of which was the of cost. with the president proposed 90 million to incentivize those states which could easily cover it because they had to get all of those names, several million into the background check system? nothing new. the name is already in the file. already in place. so we're working on that system to make sure that law enforcement has of their disposable to combat violence calling on congress to revise the ted million dollars for example, the president already said these restrictions on the ability of a federal agency to keep statistics relating to gun violence there is a prohibition that exist the

president white that off and now says he was the ted million to go to the center of disease control to restart the researchers they had in the past. why are we afraid of intervention? the form to society should not be afraid of the facts we also are trying to improve access to mental health care. how much did we read a and hear about mental health as a component as part of the solution to the problem of gun violence? there are too many people who were not getting the help they need. the most at risk card trade between the ages of 16 and 25 who need mental health. here is what we did. we finalized the affordable care act but i call it

obamacare so that coverage of mental health and substance abuse services would be available for 62 million americans for whom they are not available now. a big change. and we made it clear that every state officials through direct communication, that medicaid must treat mental health care coverage the same way they treat but with moms and dads knowing they have a serious problem but knowing but not able to afford. they have the help they needed whether on medicaid or if they have their own private health insurance. these are important acts and

time will tell how much positive impact they will have on this whole issue of gun violence. that the president has institution -- instituted for the interest of time but one that i want to talk about which is the set of guidelines to give schools and communities. a lot if you are professionals out there. i've let your police department was contacted and what we're doing this happened in my school? members of congress were getting calls. i personally was getting calls from around the country and joe and did is

remotely similar but those of thing the federal government can do well, better than it single jurisdiction, they can scare our chief find out best practices to gather the resources to say what works best? what are the best evacuation come of prevention plans and in the event to. >> we provided guidelines in the past but different agencies have different messages. so with the leadership of our team we brought in homeland security that includes the single best in disaster relief operation in the world, the month, fbi, the justice

department overall, and we insisted that they sit down together, not separate to make sure they were all on the same page one of the best recommendations to be made so there was cohesion they had significant input to deal with disasters. we put them together with more than 100 experts from law enforcement to higher education the first responders to emergency planners and reset all of you come up with what you think are the best practices the most concrete recommendations you can give us, it to enable us to teach or prepare or lay out a menu

for the school districts and churches. it is surprising, most people, remember we would sit there to have a fake leaders but they know and they are worried. veba wanted felon somebody stands up and decides to do something similar we saw in the schools, so we gave concrete directions. there are three documents being made available today. a guide for developing high school emergency operation plans for cater drove in the guide for developing high quality emergency plans that institutions of higher learning and a guide for operation plans for houses

of worship. to the and -- end we took a hard look when the school process one negative principal gets in touch looking for a vice, they should hear from the justice department and department of education and department of homeland security. and we have to make this by sized, understandable and available. the best thinking in the country every major guidance reflects all the lessons may have learned over the years to ensure schools, higher education have an opportunity to share the latest and best knowledge of emergency planning. all that work has been distilled to the guide books that i referenced. they outlined a detailed process that every school school, every institution, every house of worship shed go through to

make their own plan. so the guidebook tasks us to go into the kind of planning and with close collaboration of local responders to the practical impact is we are suggesting has a specific guideline asking a school district or a school who wants to put in place the best emergency plan, called a meeting with the local government officials, with the police officers, first responders, fire department, , etc.. sit down and go through the unique aspects of their concern in your school. it details the can remember and what can we do through

these guidelines to prevent. >> but by like this is an educator but there are a number of rules to protect of the student. there are all kinds of federal regulations, three big ones. school districts and officials call its to say what am i able to make available? what could be shared about a >> what am i able to share? share with the parent? law enforcement officials and for those in the school system. so we could nip it in the

but the threatening behavior that we see and is obvious in some students. it also talks about blocks and barriers and walls used to protect children and we make sure the planters are asking for the right questions and what will you do. who needs to know? but if there is a fire do have the evacuation route? if it is blocked what is the alternative route? if there is an active shooter how to alert the people? do teachers know what they should do? but this is the communication people should already be having with first responders. but we will go back and back it up with training with the department of homeland

security has conducted briefings on over 100 school districts and the fbi worked with some of the top experts in the field that texas state to update the tactical training for officers that respond to active shooter situations. they held a two day workshop on active shooter and every single one of the 56 new offices nationwide negative rate senior command staff for more than 1,850 state and local and tribal agencies to work with communities that represents millions of people. this is a huge mobilization to make sure the front line of walt -- law enforcement have the best protocols for responding in these situations and helps save lives not only potential victims in harm's way but cops as well making progress taken together would reduce

gun violence in america but let me make an important point* before i close. as part -- as proud as i am we need congress to act american people are demanding it to make sure the voices of those we lost are the loudest ones that we hear in this fight to make sure everyone in the country knows that this fight is not over. far from it. and i yield to my friends in the house and the senate but i assure you the one thing each of us have been saying to our colleagues is the country has change. he will pay a political price for not being engaged with safety. it used to be before sandy hook's the polling data

would show the 67 year 80 percent of the people supported these cigna began and sound proposals and when it came down to it, the 30 percent did not support which show up for the election the other 80 percent would say that was a nice old but it did not determine. what changed with sandy hook the straw that broke the camel's back. now those who support the national safety measures say this is the defining issue for me. for the first time those who favor rational proposals say it will make a difference. it will make a difference. that is a fundamental change. and i will not mention names but looked at those who

voted no and will get the poll results immediately after many who were popular in the '50s and '60s now find them in the 40's and many of those in tungstates made tough votes based on conventional wisdom like k hagen, like those from north carolina and louisiana there's have gone up because the country has changed. the country has changed. nothing we are asking for, nothing we continue to pursue is inconsistent with the constitutional right every american has. and add the single solitary thing. i am optimistic. i know people say i am always optimistic, but ibm i am optimistic because i've got in those phone calls from congress from those who voted no to say

can you find a way to revisit? that is exactly what we will be doing, counting on the leadership that is here and counting on the continued leadership of the work force of this had been a station in the department of education, the attorney general because the american people or there but in the meantime the president will continue to take every a exact -- executive action within his power to make schools safer for children children, churches a safe place to worship and significantly work on reducing the number of gun deaths in america. ladies and gentleman, since newtown more people have died at the end of the gun ban we have lost yen in afghanistan.

it is pretty astounding. and iraq as a matter of fact. over 5,000. it is no way to run a country. we know we can do something about it. matter how long it takes. i will close by thanking my colleagues and the administration and friends in the congress for not giving up on this. we have a majority but not the super majority needed. we will get it. we will be back. for the lives and safety of all children in america who should look at school as the safest place in the world. thank you very much. [applause]

>> go to gettysburg to think about the carnage there, lives lost, the great battles before it it, fredericksburg and chancellorsville, and manassas. all for these people defending a way of life, all of it, the bloodshed to

settle the contradictions and we won. we have our country. and and to say to read deserved this floor of the sacrifice? a real live up to that. >>

[inaudible conversations] >> the remote come to order those who are not part of the committee may participate. without objection and the chair is authorized to declare a recess at anytime. hour hearing today is the cfpb budget review and i yield myself five minutes for the purposes of the opening statement. almost three years ago under the enactment of a dodd/frank b. consumer financial protection bureau was created and the stated purpose is to regulate and supervise offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the federal consumer financial laws.

however prior to the inception wind still but an idea of the harvard academic the bureau was already compared to an existing commission or nt original architect at elizabeth warren stated just as a consumer product safety commission to support the competitive market we need the same for new regulatory regime and even a body to protect consumers to use car loans, mortgages and the bishops' proposed was for a and agency from a the cftc although it has three commissioners of this as a single pyrrho structure and even though subject to the

appropriations progress than the omb budget process that our witnesses very familiar with, the bureau is not. in the end ising goal director can disregarded price and manage he has or she has little accountability to the administration and less to congress with his or her budget it is secure. as a result is to come no surprise they have operated with less transparency and fan but that is from this taxpayer funds. the bureau need not listen to basic advice from the office of omb. on may 31st this year it issued a controller alerts reducing spending by which they have jurisdiction.

given the waste and abuse and conferences, this is the least we could hope for although now they can use the alert with expenditures brought into question such as a 55 million set aside for renovating the headquarters building just ups from the white house? incidentally that number 55 million is more than the entire construction and acquisition budget. >> of piro has also asked to cover this survey although there are specific recommendations the bureau tied this survey which 90 percent but they decided to do its own by taking the

action already being ranked along the other 98 percent of federal agencies that do participate. now the in-house employee survey revealed concerns regarding management of the bureau's staff. the survey provided only 35 .6% of the employees that take steps to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve''. so only one-third of the staff of the bureau believe that the staff provides real employee accountability. that is a major concern and the zero claims it invest with a world-class what they

received was sufficient. >> that sounds like anything but world-class. one story reported debris using senior staff faster than they could replace them but it says the imposed management techniques were considered equal stakeholders. a former official expressed concern that while it is good policy to give people with no exposure, you don't want them to drive policy decisions because they understand the risk for cost involved. soak those with little training and experience are seated alongside those with greater training and experience and considered =. these weaknesses could reflect a broader management problems. last week the cfpb employees voted to join the national employees union, the same one noted for representing the irs employees as well.

when considered with a total lack of accountability for the american people, i am concerned cfpb presents a substantial wreckage -- risk to the taxpayers and as the cbo i welcome our witness today and afford to his testimony now i will yield to the ranking member of the full committee comment miss waters for three minutes. . .