defense appropriation act is critical to our national security in launching satellites into the space. we have got to make sure the department and intelligence agencies can put critical satellites in orbit when needed. we have to make sure the cost of the launches is competitive so the taxpayers get the best outcome for the dollars they put into our national defense. we have to generate competition to drag down cost and to bring to an end our reliance on russian manufactured engines. there is no doubt this appropriation bill recognizes

the need to end our reliance on russian engines. we actually put our money where our mouth is. we added 133.6 million on top of the 84.4 million requested by the president to accelerate the development of the new rocket engine. ...100 billion authorized by the defense authorization committee. so we are making certain that we are going to end this reliance on russian engines. the question is how we manage the space launch through several years of launches before we have that engine. we need to do it without jeopardizing our national security. the general provision which i referred to allows for space launch competition in 2016 without regard to the source of an engine. it will permit real competition on four missions in 2016, and it will avoid trading one monopoly for another. i think i've explained how we've reached this point. i think there is good faith on

i think there is good faith on i think there's good faith on both sides. i don't question the motives of the senior citizens in senators from arizona. i hope he doesn't question my mental need to make certain that we move toward the day when america is safer and the money spent by taxpayers as well spent and mr. president at this point i yield the floor and to suggest the absence of the corn.

>> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of united states admonish to draw near and get their attention. >> rove v. wade was decided in january 1973. it is a case that is controversial, that is constantly under scrutiny and

there is the question i suppose whether it ever will cease to be under scrutiny. >> jane roe the pregnant woman went to several physicians seeking an abortion. she filed suit on behalf of herself and all those women who have in the past at the present time or in the future word -- termination of her pregnancy.

former house speaker newt gingrich was on capitol hill today to testify before house financial services subcommittee investigating the data collection practices of the consumer financial protection bureau. gingrich who is serving as an adviser to the u.s. consumer

coalition was just one of the industry lobbyists and lawyers testifying today ray this is about two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the oversight investigations subcommittee will come to order. the time at the hearing is examining the consumer financial protection bureaus mass data collection program. without objection the chair soccer sadrist to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time and without objection all members will have five legislative days in which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. the chair recognizes himself for four minutes to give an opening statement.

the consumer financial protection bureau is fundamentally passed with protecting americans from unfair or deceptive and abusive financial practices. ironically as it was sold of a massive data collection activities the cfpb is putting all americans all of us at risk. from january 2012 to july of 2014 the cfpb carried out 12 large-scale data collections including the monthly collection of data affecting hundreds of millions of credit card accounts, 173 million mortgages as well as information on 10.7 million consumer credit reports. five of these data collections are ongoing. not a day goes by that americans are not made aware of yet another breach of their sensitive information whether it's in the public or private sector vast collections of personal consumer data are prime targets for cyber attackers. aside from the fact that cfpb does not need to be collecting

information to carry out its tributary mission it's troubling is not taken more perfect steps to secure this data. in fact before this committee last year cfpb director cordray said he could row of the potential for data breach at the bureau. we now know and the american people don't know how much personal identifiable information or pii they retain. how that is protected with the bureau plans to do with all that data. will the cpb claims it collects very little data that contains pii collecting non-pii data may endanger consumers. a recent study published by m.i.t. led researchers found that four pieces of information about a person's credit card transactions was enough to re-identifying the anonymous credit card data and 90% of the cases that they study. dodd-frank granted the cfpb expensive and intrusive

authority with very little accountability or oversight. however the cfpb's data collection programs appear to exceed the mandate included in dodd-frank. under the guise of its supervisory monitoring and examination authorities the cfpb appears to have subordinated consumer's interest with the data collection programs. what is more concerning for the cfpb claims to be an information driven agency it seems the cherry-picked data to justify pursuing a politicized rule-making agenda. for publishing unverified consumer complaints on this web site using unreliable methodologies for auto lending the agency has proven time and time again that it will present only the most convenient of quote facts for its purposes. not bleeding data to validate a regulatory outcome is not sound public policy. this is junk science.

the cfpb's focus on responding to actual allegations of consumer fraud and discrimination rather than collecting data for the purposes of undertaking costly and abusive expeditions that i welcome our panel here today of witnesses and i look forward to hearing from them as they present their testimony. i nagged you five minutes to the jumo protects is the ranking member mr. green for five minutes for his opening statement. >> thank you very much mr. chairman but i would like to thank the witnesses for appearing and i would like to acknowledge the presence of the honorable former speaker of the house and for our purposes today because he was the speaker i shall refer to him as mr. speaker. i am mr. chairman antithetical to most of what you said and i am also concerned about something that has occurred.

mr. speaker, someone owes you an apology and someone owes you an apology because on the memos that i have received and on the witness list you are acknowledge to to have been the former speaker the former speaker of the house and indeed you should be but there is no acknowledgment of your affiliation with the u.s. consumer coalition, and generally speaking this is what we do here. i have a document that i shall ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. >> without objection. at this document is dated july 23, 2015 on the financial services majority staff and its members of the committee about the dodd-frank act five years later. and it indicates that we were

having the -- to appear in the case that he was senior partner of u.s. policy metrics and he's a former united states senator. the honorable bradley miller of counsel with grayson ellsworth llc and former member of congress. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that the record be corrected so that it will be indicated on the memo and the witness list that you are mr. speaker, you are associated with the u.s. consumer coalition. i ask unanimous consent.

>> if that's the case, without objection. >> i would also indicate why i have done this mr. chairman. he wrote quite a few articles concerning this coalition, this group. it appears to be a corporate owned and subsidized synthetic grassroots organization. the activist consumer organizations know very little about it. the 501(c)(4), no way to ascertain who really funds it and i think it's very important for us to know who is really coming after the cfpb, and this organization has a mission statement that coincides with much of what has occurred here in the congress of the united states of america. so i'm going to have to yield some time to the ranking member

but i think it's important for us to go into this. i have several articles that i will be entering into the record and having to use the speaker's statement for today. i'm going to assume that is just an oversight because nowhere in the statement does it indicate his affiliation with the u.s. consumer coalition. this oversight has occurred or than once because it appears that "the wall street journal" said to issue an amplification of the result. this is something that has been called to our attention by various sources, one being media matters. but this i will now yield the remainder and residue of my time to the ranking member. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the time.

as we sit here today to talk about the cfpb data collection practices, the cfpb uses the dated users to collect potentially harmful products are not permeate the market to inform the agency's rulemaking effort to conduct critical supervisory oversight and to return money to consumers that have been harmed. unfortunately my colleagues across the aisle are not here today to discuss data collection practices. instead, this hearing is simply another blatant attempt to mischaracterize the bureau's data collections activity is harmful to consumers. how do we know this? because the chairman of this committee previously sponsored a bill that was enacted with the authorized creation of a national mortgage data repository that will collect the same individualize personalized data that republicans shamed the cfpb for collecting and that's the subject of this very

hearing. currently most of the data that the cfpb collects his public and not personally identifiable. but the gao and the cfpb inspector general have indicated that the cfpb is generally compliant with data privacy and security laws. nevertheless my republican colleagues are here today to again criticize and under vine and agencies that is returned more than $11 billion to 25 million americans. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the time that she does not have. the chair recognizes the vice-chairman of this committee mr. fitz patrick for an opening statement. >> thank you chairman for the hearing and welcome to the witnesses this morning. increasingly our cyber and the structure and private records are becoming targets of state and nonstate actors alike. i want to remind anyone here that the personal information from the opposite personal management and i suspect we oversee that letter were

significant breaches of consumer data that occurred. any organization especially an agency of the federal government in nine states which consumer data and stored in a single location as the cfpb does especially when according to a gao study the cfpb lacks documentation is for the security protocol to store private consumer information in a manner sake from hackers. what's more it seems though that the date is off limits to the cfpb. while congress has not been provided a complete picture of these actions we know one of these collections yielded data on 173 million laws would tour to the hearing and today's witness testimony we hope that allows us to develop a better understanding of its practice and if there is a legitimate need for federal practices to continue. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i now want to welcome our witnesses and because they do want to at what point guitar

testimony and not going to spend an hour giving all of the things speaker gingrich has done. what i have realized recently though he is a fictional author and just wrote a great look which my wife is completing. it's a page-turner. i didn't realize that but i am going to stick to the basics. he was elected to congress in 1970 from the sixth district of georgia and this will now begin the speaker the house in 1995 to 1998. speaker gingrich welcome and thank you for being here. i want to welcome mr. wayne abernathy. the executive vice president for financial institution policy and regulatory affairs at the american bankers association. welcome. dr. calabria welcome again. he is the financial, the director of financial regulation studies at the cato institute and finally but not least mr. deepak gupta is the founding principle of gupta kessler in

washington d.c.. welcome panel. each of you are going to be recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. without objection the witness's testimony will be made part of the record following their oral remarks. once the witnesses have finished their testimony each member the subcommittee will have five minutes within which to ask the panel questions. as her mind of many of you know this but on the table you have three lights. one is green and that means go, yellow means you have a minute left and red means you're time is up. i would note if you get a question why your light is yellow i will give you the leniency to finisher question is a goes on to read but please go on for a minute or two. the microphones are sensitive so please make sure you are speaking directly into them. in fact speaker gingrich welcome and you are recognized for your five minute presentation. >> good morning and thank you for allowing me to be here.

i do want to say about mr. green's concern if either he or his staff would read the testimony they would find on page three i describe my relationship as an advisor to the u.s. consumer coalition but the subject of today's hearing is important and that we have an agency collecting more information about american's private lives than any bureaucracy deserves for reasons unrelated to national security. it's also important a broader sense. today the consumer financial protection bureau is so far outside the historic american system of constitutionally limited government and the rule of law it's the perfect case study of the pathologists and bureaucracies at the federal level. it's dictatorial, it's unaccountable, is practically unrestrained and expanding on its expansive mandate from congress and its contemptuous for the right studies and preferences of ordinary americans. the cfpb is all of these things as are many of our large

district of bureaucracies in the city, a huge problem. the cfpb is an especially good symbol of these methodologies because of its unique structure among regulatory agencies. in the dodd-frank wall street performing consumer protection act that created the bureau congress berrien wisely in my opinion gave up two of its core constitutional powers for reining in executive branch agencies. first the cfpb is not subject to the annual congressional appropriations process and instead is funded out of a fixed portion of the federal reserve's budget and ineffective at bureaucratic slush fund that is self defined by the brocker sees on their behalf. second instructor can be fired only by the president and then only under limited circumstances because dodd-frank prohibits protection, dodd-frank protection from being removed by congress. for all practical purposes this

means the bureaucracy is free to do whatever it wants in the broadest interpretation of its authority without fear of losing its funding or its leadership. this is a very dangerous recipe for petty dictatorship and its completely foreign to the american model. i always remind people lord acton's faith -- famous dictum power tends to corrupt. absolute power corrupts absolutely and notice he just attends. no better example of the corruption of power than this agency which is totally secret, totally unaccountable spending vast amount of money having huge cost overruns and doing what ever wants to to have to whoever feels like doing it too. we know this is dangerous because we have watched the bureau's behavior over the past four years. we have seen the contempt with which it treats congress and the american people. the cfpb is prohibited from regulating car dealers.

it's done so anyway. it's an absurdly inaccurate technique which by the way in the private sector would lead to lawsuits over fraud. accuse them of racial discrimination and extract find from companies and auto finance companies. he your government is a bully and your government is a blackmailer. this hearing is another good example of cfpb soper reached one i also discussed to my own article in "the wall street journal" last summer. the cfpb is prohibited in section 1022 of dodd-frank from collecting personally identifiable information on americans but the bureau is doing so anyway and it's doing so on a massive scale. the most controversial collection programs are much less compelling reasons. the cfpb says it aims to monitor at least 95% of all credit card transactions in the u.s. by 2016. toward that end the bureau is

collecting data from at least 600 million credit card accounts each month. that's 7 billion records in the last year alone. it's not just credit card data. the cfpb is gathering data on private markers every month, 5.5 million student loans, and hundreds of thousands of auto sales credit -- these intrusive data operating art taking place without consumer's knowledge and without the ability of consumers to opt out. unless there are occasional oversight hearings with his consumers are unaware that government bureaucrats are pouring over their credit card transactions looking for products to regulate. the cfpb is scooping up or information about law-abiding americans than any government agency should be permitted to collect for reasons unrelated to national security or law enforcement. in fact in a recent poll conducted by zogby the dealer's

consumer coalition which i happen to -- let me repeat that census director but i want to share particularly with mr. green staff were to happen to advise. i'm not secret about the relationship. one in five americans said the cfpb should be allowed to gather credit card statements without consumer's knowledge. those were concerned about the intelligence data collection effort i don't see how you can be worried about the potential for abuse and the justified lack of transparency and national security agencies and not be concerned about the same dangers in this large amount of bureaucracy armed with similar kinds of information. this is the absurdity of being told homeland security will not look at facebook pages of foreigners out of concern for the privacy while cfpb is gathering up all this data. let me just say certainly for the purpose of preventing terrorism to cfpb should need a warrant to.

what we have at the cpfb is an agency not accountable to congress or the american people. an agency that is stretching the boundaries of its authority as far as a canopy or proceed which for all practical purposes is out of control. as the mac and peoples represents a congress that should bother you no matter what side of the aisle you're on and whatever you think are the preferred regulations. it's imperative that we move moved toward abolishing the consumer financial protection bureau and at the very least subject it to annual appropriations process in addition to restructuring its leadership to make sure it's accountable to congress. thank you i look forward to your questions. >> mr. abernathy you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chairman duffy and ranking member green for this opportunity to testify. my name is wayne abernathy. the customers of thousands of member banks were affected by the actions, policies and decisions of the consumer bureau. the bureau has enormous

authority for retail financial property, those who provide them and therefore over the people who use them. this power comes with little more than phenomenal oversight and accountability. it would be hard to find a federal agency where the gap between regulatory power and public accountability is greater officials repeatedly assert that the bureau as a transparent and data-driven agency. public exposure and data are to be the checks on the natural tendency for any such agency to stray into arbitrary actions. i emphasize the bureau is governed by one person. no one in the agency can address him without ultimately bending to that one person's policy judgment. knowing that at some point in the discussion at will and with yes sir.

we welcome the subcommittees inquiry into the question of how strong a check on arbitrary behavior are the bureau's data policy. and practices. how much is the bureau in fact data-driven and by which data, from which sources and how would we know? director cordray stated the following quote at the consumer bureau we are dated driven agency. the best decisions will be those that are best informed and quote. the bureau strategic plan for fy2013 through 2017 includes the following quote, we take in data manage its storage sure to properly protected from unauthorized access unquote and this from the bureau's web site on a page titled. transparency is at the core of our agenda and it is a key part

of how we operate and quote. we support those statements. the bureau practices however have not lived up to the standards and there is little to require that they do so. the dodd-frank at the expense of the bureau impressive authorities while requiring information. the oversight structure is much less impressive. problematic for a data practices have undermined the effective use of data to serve as a check on arbitrary action and weakens the quality of policymaking placing at risk of bureau's mission to protect consumers. in my written statement i discuss several examples which i will merely list for you at this point. public disclosure laws such as the paperwork reduction act while cherry-picking data. in selected data samples the bureau's skews results and mischaracterizing consumer markets. the bureau has misrepresented its data-gathering on overdrafts unless web site the bureau

publishes unverified complaint information. interpreters instead of the bureau ignores its own data. to promote its policy on indirect auto lending the bureau has manufactured data that does not exist. i'll explain briefly one of these as an example. in verified complaint information. the bureau publishes on its webpage at the top of which are the words and official web site of the united states government. they publish consumer complaints that are unverified for accuracy or ferocity. by adding their voice consumers help improve the financial marketplace and quote. but how can this be true if the information provided is unreliable and misleading? what would disappear offer to protect the consumer from acting on erroneous information published on the bureau's own web site?

aba offers for recommendations in our written statement. i would emphasize our report. the governance of the bureau should be changed from a sole directorship to governance by a bipartisan commission. with a bipartisan structure weekend light from a variety of different people posing different questions from different backgrounds all more likely to poke and prod the data and all of them likely to be intolerant of information. on behalf of aba and its member banks and all business models serving hundreds of millions of people, our customers and your constituents impacted by bureau decisions by the consumer bureau i want to thank the subcommittee for this very important hearing could i would be happy to respond to any questions right now. >> thank you.

dr. calabria you recognize. >> i thank you for the invitation to appear in today's word hearing. the concerns i will raise are not unique to the cfpb. they apply across the federal government. let me know that my colleagues and i indicate we have consistently raised these concerns regardless of politics or the mission of the agency that we have been vocal in abuses of law enforcement and national security. we expend more resources trying to undo party doctrine so again this is not something new to us pretty bad we have spent more time on the patriot acts that we have on surveillance of the consumer protection bureau so against this is nothing new for us. let me also -- the massive data collection is one of choice. there's no explicit mandate or requirement for this level of data collection. if someone who is priebus matches one of the offices that have been transmitted cfpb i can say the extent of this data

collection is unnecessary to fulfill its responsibilities. nearly doubled enforcement to increase enforcement action we did so without having to resort to a massive dragnet of consumer data. unfortunately -- the problems with respa and their consumer financial protection are the underlines that choose which i greatly encourage congress to revisit. we have seen this play out in the air of national security where the public is repeatedly told that if only we had more data various attacks would have been avoided. repeatedly the intelligence failures we witness are not from a lack of data. there are from an inability to connect the dots. similarly the financial crisis was met with demands for more data. the overheated housing and mortgage markets are not obvious enough from aggregate data. they were obvious to me of a decade ago. of course we are regulators ignore them and of course more data does not necessarily help

you but you continue to ignore. the cfpb -- has engaged in at least 12 large-scale data collection efforts through the least. these include information not directly identifies individual consumers. combining this information with other sources could allow information to be identified on consumers. in my opinion granted as a monthly or i believe these collections do not comply with the right to financial privacy act and let me state as a formal federal employee subject to the opm bridge i don't trust any part of the government with my data. the cfpb or otherwise. consolidating this financial information one place the cfpb has left consumers extremely vulnerable to hackers and identity theft. those are the lead threats from outside the bureau. of course in the cfpb data collection poses significant threats to our fourth amendment protections which apply to everybody.

bo a checking account may well record the citizens activities opinions believes as fully as the transcript records. credit cards are today's checks. such current concerns are not reflections of the watergate era. as recently as 2012 justice sotomayor correctly observed quote awareness of the government may be watched associational and expressive freedoms. governments unrestrained power to assemble data that reveals private aspects is susceptible to abuse. justice sotomayor's words not mine. medications purchased on line by retailers such a purchase could theoretically identify data collections. for a variety of reasons is i think this hearing is demonstrated across have the cfpb has become a highly partisan issue. we are to use its records of its critics in it attempt to silence

his critics who would not be the first agency to do so in this institute we receive our donations via credit card and this is a very robust and certainly one that we worry about. i will only quote justice thurgood marshall who observe quote the technique of examining bank robert records is unfortunately not a real one. as someone who takes a stand at some pub in washington i shared the concern. my suggestion would be the cfpb and data collections but i would submit there is more than enough work to do responding to consumer complaints. i think the subcommittee for their time and look forward to your questions. >> mr. gupta you are now recognized for a summary. >> i will make three points this morning based on my perspective as a former cfpb official and an advocate for consumers including data privacy cases. first privacy and the security

of consumer data are important issues and if they subcommittee were really concerned there are real problems we could be addressing. a major data of breaches in which credit card information was stolen from consumers at target and home depot for example. the subcommittee hasn't held a single hearing of those real-world threats. instead we are having a hearing of the imagined problems that exist only in the minds of the cfpb political opponents. in fact if you asked the consumer privacy groups they voice support of cfpb data collection efforts in their state been entered into the record today or will be. as one privacy advocate. the reason you don't hear from privacy or consumer groups is that the cfpb is not doing anything that concerns us nor for that matter isn't doing much differently than other regulators have always done. second, to the extent that is doing anything different the collection of data is creating the kind of oversight and consumer protection that we are we are missing before the financial crisis. for example the compilation of

anonymous account level data and i want to stress that anonymous account level data from the credit card database has allowed the bureau to study important topics such as credit card marketing practices and the widespread use of force arbitration clauses in consumer contracts something congress requires the cfpb to study. data collection is crucial to the bureau's ability to identify systemic violations of consumer laws discrepancies and credit score reporting and harmful effects from checking account overdraft programs to name a few examples. the cfpb data collection insures the agency's regulation and enforcement are data-driven and based on the best understanding of the market trends in empirical reality. that's the whole point of having expert administrative agencies in the first place. unless your profits come from deceiving comes consumers you should welcome the cf db data collection. i'm finally the existence of this hearing illustrates one danger that can occur when

public officials don't case actions and data. we have a made-up controversy based on made-up facts. the cfpb is not spying on american citizens. it is not the nsa or does not interest in the details of people's personal activities nor would with the data the agency is currently collecting enable it to investigate those abuses even if it weren't just didn't say what you plan to buy tomorrow with your credit card for a christmas present for your grandmother. in fact the vast majority of the data collected by the cfpb is already public such as data on mortgages already recorded in land records or auto sales on record with the dmv. most of it is aggregate level data aggregate data be, will moderate the transactional level design to be -- get agency picture what financial institutions not what individual consumers up to. the gao looks into this controversy and a detailed review found that none of the major problems that the cfpb's

opponents have alleged exist or that the 12 major projects analyzed by the gao only three potentially involve any personal consumer data and the gao found the cfpb had taken steps to protect and secure the data it collects and has a system for anonymizing any material involving identifying information. i want to correct one and accuracy that i have heard several times already this morning. none of the ongoing data collections but the cfpb contains personally identifiable information. the fact is then verified by the gao. agencies have been collecting the same things for years and nobody has complained. the story of consumer complaint in december. the inspector. the inspector general did an exhaustive review and uncovered no major problems but the 250,000 complaints examined the igs audit found accuracy rate of 99-point 99% an error rate of 0.01%. i wish most of the work products

that emanated from this building for example could meet that accuracy standard. meanwhile the financial industry is collecting far more personally identifiable data that could open up real questions about consumer privacy jpmorgan chase released a report that came from a dataset of 12 million consumer transactions soap we are really worried about the collection of this country's data we should be more concerned about the private market developing this data. the real problems with consumer finance it's unfortunate subcommittee feels the need to hold a hearing today on this non-issue. thank you for inviting me to testify and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you panel. the chair recognizes by german the panel the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. fitzpatrick for five minutes. >> thank you for calling the hearing. it's critically important given the security breaches we have been hearing about and reading about and the private sector of the economy. most importantly in the public sector and most of those cases

the average american citizen does not know that their information is being collected by the federal government or security has been breached. they just don't know that. speaker gingrich he talked about the two constitutional provisions within a state congress essentially walked away from in passing dodd-frank and creating the cfpb and you testified about the personally identifiable information of the cfpb is collecting. i have two questions. first week concerned about the cfpb's ability to protect and secure that information from breaches and the second question is when you have an agency of the federal government essentially lacks the accountability or oversight from congress what is the interest or the vigilance the agency would have to protect that information? how is the cfpb different from other agencies? >> thank you for the question. let me say first of all anybody who believes that anyone has the

ability to guarantee security of information is totally out of touch with the real world. when you look at the size of the breaches in new book of the number of actors around the planet and you look at the intensity which people are trying to figure out how to do this there is no place we can aggregate information unless you take a totally off-line that you will see a real true security. the systems are growing very rapidly. they're getting much more sophisticated and we are going to be in a very different world words just like the wild west. this is not like 10 years ago and it's going to get worse. second i will point out in "the wall street journal" article i cited a stanford study on how to save metadata from telephones and connect them with individual identity and an m.i.t. study of credit cards of people say we are only gathering in personal information, the fact is they don't understand how that data

has evolved in the fact that you can reassess and redefine people if you have enough data points. i find it much more frightening to have government bureaucracies that are uncontrolled having that level of information and power. the private sector, it is and it works if you are a citizen into bureaucrats show up at your front door. >> mr. deepak gupta -- had their personal information or her fernand shahab was stolen from a database in cfpb how would you explain to her that it was necessary for the federal government to collect and store this information the first place? >> i would first explain to her the premise of the question is false because i said none of the ongoing collection efforts by the cfpb involve any personally identifiable information. that is verified by the gao report and pursuant to the statutory authority to the

authority that this congress gave the cfpb to do ongoing market monitoring expressly comes with a limitation that says that market monitoring, that data does not include personally identical fashion to identifiable information and the cfpb is complying with that mandate. it's going to be because she provided as part of a consumer complaint and that information is not going to be information that would be damaging. with the information it requires and allows agency to get in touch with her or for example when their supervision and enforcement in agency needs of persons information to get in touch with them to return to reimburse them. those are small exceptions. >> do you concur by constituents should have no concern? >> i do not concur. my read of it is clear that at least three of those programs to have personally identify with permission and there's also a

question of can you take the information in those programs and link them to other programs that aren't personally identifiable and i think there's a real risk there. again as i noted in my testimony i was a victim of the opm breach. opm has now made sure i get a least a year of credit check free and that's very touching that i would personally like the chinese to give the money information back and not to use it. it's hard to close the barn door after the horses outside think we need to get ahead. the point to react is not after the breached. >> i think most of us who were affected by the same breach would agree with you. i yield back rays the chair now recognizes the ranking member ms. slaughter for five minutes. >> thank you very much and let me welcome our panel is here today and specially speaker gingrich. welcome, welcome, welcome. speaker gingrich, who are you representing here today? >> i represent myself.

>> what is the name of the pr firm you work for? >> the u.s. consumer coalition is not a pr firm. his organization has been raising questions, work with them and i've said that publicly and in fact in the testimony we submitted here. i think the questions they raised are very good ones. >> excuse me i'm not registered in that right now. the coalition has hired a pr firm that you work for. you work with a pr firm firm. is at right? >> i work with the coalition. >> do work for the pr firm hired by the coalition? >> i would have to check to see. >> okay. >> we work with the coalition. >> with the ranking member yield if you would? mr. speaker i have your "wall street journal" article and there's an indication that the end that you are a paid advisor

to the public affairs group that are you denying this mr. speaker? >> that was the question ranking members asking and i yield back to the ranking member. >> thank you very much and the coalition is funded by what industries? >> i don't know. >> the coalition represents any other consumer groups? to the advocate for any other consumer groups or just organize to do with their concerns and the consumer financial protection bureau? >> my impression is they think that the threat from the cfpb is large enough that is their primary focus. >> mr. speaker is that exactly what they do just the consumer financial protection bureau? >> you'll have to call them and ask them.

u.s. made by someone thing. >> i know you're very smart mr. speaker and he would work with somebody that you didn't know, who they are and what they do so that's why ascii but let me just move on because i know you understand how this place works. he talked about the fact that it's the only agency that operates in the way that it does it's the only agency that does not have to go before the appropriations committee. do you now understand that to be true? >> that is certainly my impression. if you find other agencies that have perpetual life by drawing money and manners that has nothing to do the congress i think congress ought to hold hearings in ring them up in the constitution. >> are you aware of where for example they fhfa has one director appointed by the president and can only be removed by the president and does not go before any appropriations committee?

are you aware of that? >> i was not aware of it. as such is said to the degree you'd like to give us it was give us it was that we could suggest a congress that they bring under appropriations. >> sir i knows you know how this plays runs and you ran it with a hands i know you understand how works. does the fdic go before an appropriations committee? >> only one subject to congressional supervision. >> that was not my question. in terms of what the president is able to do in determining whether or not a director continues as director, the occ for example, the director can only be fired by the present in the same thing with the fhfa. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and the fed they don't go before appropriations committee. >> they have been auditing the fed for that very reason. santa present can only remove

the head of fcc come is that right? >> yes. >> so i want us to be clear when we could compare the consumer financial protection bureau with other agencies some of us are very appreciative that dodd-frank created the consumer financial protection bureau because prior to the meltdown, the recession that we entered into nobody was protecting the consumers. we have all of our oversight agencies who basically were supposed to be responsible for soundness etc. but they did nothing for consumers. so now we have the consumer financial protection bureau and we have the whole effort to destroy it to the other side of the aisle has made this a top priority and everything that they do. just as mr. gupta said wealthy at this breach with target and others never have we had a hearing on any of that. i'm glad that you are here today but i want you to share your knowledge with us and tell us

what you know and what you understand rather than some of the other stuff i'm hearing and i yield back a balance of my time. >> maybe you can ask -- the chair recognizes a drummon from colorado mr. tipton for five minutes. >> thank you chairman duffy. mr. speaker. >> i wanted to comment the gentlelady is pointed out all these perrysburg reseize were responsible responsible for oversight prior 2007 failed to the answers let's build another prophecy to look after the failed bureaucracies is supposedly being appointed these bureaucracies failed? i think it's a fascinating difference of opinion and i appreciate your pointing out that we should have a study which cato may have of all the agencies that should be under congressional annual appropriations prevent thought that was a useful contribution. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. gupta i would like to start with you with regard to personal information. you made the comment that no

personal information is collected. is gender and identifier? >> is gender and identifier? gender standing alone with nothing else. >> would have included h.? >> there would be i identifier of those two together? >> we included those elements are those things that can be used to identify an individual? >> i take your point and you are right in a constellation of data can be used to identify someone without their name in the sea of tb is very concerned about that. that's why in the gao report you will see they have the data intake team that carefully describes the data before it enters the bureau and is disseminated to ensure you don't have a constellation of data that can be assembled to identify anybody. >> mr. gupta under the cfpb would be mmbtu -- mnbtu they require gender age and --

mr. calabria we like to comment on that? >> again i would agree they only a small information is. >> as i pointed out in my testimony the federal reserve inspector general pointed out a significant amount of data collection is maintained by contractors on cloud computing which might pinion granted not an expert but leads to hacking. i would certainly encourage the cfpb to bring that data collection. >> this gao report that cfpb does not have security protocols in place to secure this data? >> that is correct and that is a very big concern of mine the security of this data. >> if i could follow-up with you for a long time. her bodies the heart may be in the right place but we need to

look at outcomes predicate a general sense going back to speaker gingrich's point that we have an institution right now to the cfpb that is completely off the books and congress has no control to be able to control it too directed. do you have a sense that we have a system in place that's continuing to build design to be able to find and punish rather than help and improve? >> there's a fair-mindedness psychology literature but when people feel they are wrapped up in a cause that self-righteous and certainly the cfpb attitude we are crusade, we are going to fix a financial crisis. he saw the same thing in the intelligence community after nine 9/11. when you get caught up in this mentality to get blinders and you get tunnel vision. a lot of research clearly demonstrates that. >> and i would reference one of the citations in my testimony by cass sunstein about people who argued that the need to have

procedures and checks in place so dissent is heard. the value of report is that somebody sits there and says just like this committee can have this dialogue in this back-and-forth there needs to be this back-and-forth and wayne talked about at the end of the day every employee at cfpb needs to say yes sir to mr. cordray. none of us have all the answers for this dialogue in this back-and-forth in this give-and-take. you need that. there are other places that don't have those that don't do well. it was mentioned in another -- a number of agencies. we saw how that turned out. again the attitude come you can't have this give-and-take is critically important and also we need single direction is captured by the industry. i'm not a mathematician but the last i checked a thing would be easier to capture one person than to capture five. >> one thing that concerns me

about this if we were to play the same rules to the cfpb that they are trying to apply to everyone else if we were getting ready to -- and again going back to the comments in terms of identifiers about a gender and identity you are collecting data with no consumer knowledge. how is the cfpb address the private sector? >> let me make two quick points. first of all the jpmorgan example i can choose not to use jpmorgan and i can sue them if they distribute my data in a personal way. target took a big hit. you don't see any of this with the federal government but lastly we don't have to wonder how this works. the example weather is not personally identifiable information that you can leak it to the courthouse identities. not that hard. >> the chair recognizes mr. cleaver for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.

i thank all of you for being here. appreciate it very much. mr. speaker you may have misspoken and say that the cfpb was totally secret so i'm assuming -- this is not a catcher wrong question but when you made the comment i didn't think you were saying that the cfpb was the agency. >> my impression is if you look at various hearings and various interrogatories that the leader of the cfpb has remarkably little interest in sharing with congress and whole range of information including the cost overruns including salaries and so forth. my impression is that they are remarkably secretive

organization for a non-national securitization. >> i agree with you that is markedly secretive as opposed to totally secretive because it was totally secretive when it was hearing. tonight i'm happy to be amended to remarkably. >> thank you. mr. abernathy, do you think it's important that we have evidence-based policies? >> absolutely congressman. in our view when you have an agency that would buy just one individual without all of the other checks and balances and oversight get out their agencies are subject to you are left with just one check and that is the exposure to the public. ..

>> >> but they have the series the elected officials and they are peers of one another and check their activities that prevents the

use of data because they will say madame chairwoman there is more information you need to take into account no one is like that the bureau of copier or director. and most of those around the country but on people with mortgages. you and to think about of the of commercial data that is available. does it not have a lot of data about individuals? we back they do.

but what makes it different is the queue but the pieces together looky under dodd/frank there is virtually nothing that they cannot and with those enormous amounts of those data. >> it is erroneous to say that but that is all that we do end maybe a the speaker was right. with the federal reserve they're all in the data collection business. we can create this attitude

to give money to the taliban i did we take this too far. i yield back. >> appreciated very much we appreciate it. coming from the private sector for 35 years running small companies. you have to be accountable all the time with a business background your employees, customers, but it seems to me we should do the same with government but unfortunately it does not happen very often. and made was on the board of the housing authority and shirley after i realized he had a five-year term appointed by the governor and could not be fired.

he had no with a worthy with a funding source that was independent than they have 6,000 families waiting to come in from out of the pull them have a public housing authority spending money on pewter programs for prison inmates. as well as in a request from the board held the operation was performed was ignored. that they found out there respective tries to build a one-bedroom apartment they had a single family home on a quarter acre. so we would change the law to be sure the executive director reported to the board with financial controls by the time we left

the cost per unit had dropped 45% and we helped hundreds more families. and i am looking at the cftc -- cfpb the reports to nobody the director has a five-year contract, a revenue stream and i am asking if it makes sense of the executive director shows up six months ago to convince us that it is a darn good idea to spend $216 billion on an office building and they don't own it? a two-story waterfall and reflecting pool and a playground of the roof? how can we trust these people to collect the data here in america forever from these?

we had a major breach of data security with the largest health insurance provider in the state. thousands have their data violated. so why ask you mr. speaker, what can we do to fix this? to you trust this organization to collect the data and how do but sit? >> faq. i have to confess that entire story is amazing if robles be a study of its own right. but to set the record straight pope department of justice and ftc had consumer protection and responsibilities prior to december 1 dash 2,008 so the notion of basic per bureaucracy on top of the others because it would be terrific you described arrogance of power because

they're not controlled so why shouldn't they have their waterfall in the atrium? why shouldn't they think i am here to protect america based on my prejudice with my ideology argue lucky to have me as the savior? that shows you why not to be abolished to break it up them put a back. but they will not tell you all of the various data gathering techniques but we are told there are consumer data at companies that includes personal data. and get burned modern technology. >> for those listening in a tangible example of how to

connect data accountability. if you have specific banks of data they were at high risk and i would raise the question they will tell us everything is fine until the next breach we're in a competition of the free market of hackers worldwide to operate without red tape or limitations and bureaucratic structures that is low end incompetent no reason to believe this will be better than o p.m..

billions of data points. >> would you support a five person governing panel at the agency? >> i would not. as the ranking member mentioned there are lots of agencies. >> bluetooth support under the appropriation process? >> no i would not. the other bay gave me give hitters are not subject to the appropriations process but they have funding from the entities that are regulating and it prevents them agency to be subject

that makes them broken in every respect to deny that is why they have sold many hearings with to a bendy bureaucrats. but what we hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle no offense to the breaking member she is passionately she is wrong they're not smart enough to make decisions on their own so bureaucrats and politicians will tell them what to do. to compare data collection till my county and by rural district is a joke for girl look back at their reasoning behind dodd/frank and cfpb and in a lot of respect it was danny and freddie influencing the private

sector telling the banks whose to loan money to and who not to. get to the facts. for my friends on the left, they see the private sector as a problem and everything should be done in washington by bureaucrats and politicians. this is a slap in the face to the american people. they are figured out -- they are smart enough to figure out what works and when does the end doesn't need the people in washington to do it for them. >> if they would use this to responsibly are you concerned with the lack of accountability? >> edits the serious problem that all you have to back for accountability is the public exposure that they

claim they rely upon but would get the decision they have made rather than rely upon the data they cherry pick the data the process they don't reveal to the public to say this is what the data tells us what you do it in one case they have demonstrated the value read they did put the data out for people to look at it ended disproves of functions but encourages the public and that is what we need. >> going back to funding messages funded the same way but it is widely accepted they fell down on the job and of

course, mr. greenspan, mr. b ernanke or ms. shelton are not accepting contributions from wall street. they screwed up for a number of wall street's - - wall street that is an illustration of why you don't want one single powerful person. and the all the way we know there are discussions is one of the board members forced that conversation that would not have been had a single director. ray to clearly state for the record cfpb is not part of the federal government that is broken. i don't subscribe to the two wrongs make sarah wright theory. that does not justify as to the something broken.

>> my time is expired. hopefully republican administration and will take over in 2017 and they will sing a different tune at that time. but remember to your point too long stowe the right. we need to call this out for what it is then the republicans did it would be wrong also. give the american people some credit there are smarter than washington. >> the gentleman from arkansas. >> they give for calling this hearing they serve so long ago on the senate banking committee staff. many moons have passed for go but i feel like rip van winkle to say this behavior and this is not the first

time. because been run -- teeeighteen would scoop them up so they could not be identifiable. my whole problem is just because you can does not mean you should with a massive data collections with a sample would do just as well for a trend analysis. and with the regulatory system based on looking at institutions and the activities of the institutions on a small scale based to make the determinations a good or bad job with consumer legislation. it was not a sweeping

170 million loan records that are now in the hands of the cfpb. in my district in arkansas taken up by 70 cases of fire resident a theft that is all we talk about in my office. i have concerns about that. and to be here in their reenforce is why i ran for congress in mind the people of arkansas elected me because once again i feel like the chief apologist for the intrusive big brother big government solution. we have had hearings in this room on the target breach, retailers and bankers testify about blood reaches end bills moving in the energy and commerce committee settled make the assumption.

>> and those are good efforts and the committee is making a fax with a loss to journal was quite clear in the native back to read and that has gone in the world record in the most recent effort. to understand the of market that it regulates. for the individual firms to deal with the market's to collect 87% of the credit-card market. 95% of all credit card accounts. is there any justification

which you can just do a survey for a small sample for any analysis? >> in the "road to serfdom" high-tech made the argument in the centralized planners have a a fact based approach to have ideologies it is very funny in essence imagines you have president cruz or president trompe with that collection agency that person is now in charge

of the data so instead of being anti-dash lead they are pro-gun. you need to understand if you have total power in one person's hands not total secrecy but remarkable secrecy. you are creating a natural pattern that leaves too dangerous behavior for this reason. to exercise the power of the state and their ideology to destroy a new route people because the government is so big a powerful.

it is not the way we should be going in direction levy for say in this is an important topic and i overstate my view for data security me to have witnesses here the news from

our read this is that go far beyond what we should be discussing yet he and. how it was established talking about the budget what this is scheduled to do and did say disservice to indiana our constituents. also with your expertise as a cybersecurity expert. i also know you are a paid public affairs consultant.

>> at which not classified his expertise but on cyberissues over 25 years as speaker of the house to spend time of the national-security agency. all you have to do is click bader of the newspapers the increasing frequency of cyberactivity in the ability of the government to protect itself that doesn't require a massive level of expertise. that would be wise for the subcommittee for those who have cybercapabilities to explain why this is dangerous. for the mask data collection program. it is dangerous in the age of metadata you could identify individuals from supposedly anonymous

information and. you can go through this but i will assure you spending time with the cybercommuned i am not a cyberexpert. >> i have to move on. but with those articles let me ask you this. some the have commented the cfpb is vulnerable to hackers because of their heavy reliance on cloud based computing. cad you tell me how you feel about that? water better practices from the experience that would be better? >> if you talk to people at the pentagon. >> in your opinion. >> want to hear from you.

you have shared you have this experience and you have been the most critical if i want to discern and separate if this is pre-disposed of articles i have kept out with ideas against the organization so keep this in the context to give me specifics that you have city year today not that they may call in the future. >> briefings. if you aggregate this kind of data you always have the potential to identify individuals and i can give you technical experts who would explain that. >> is a you don't have any that you can give me? if you are the real expert taking up my time. thank you very much.

can you answer that question? >> our testimony focuses on the policy-making process without a single director. >> that is not my question. my time is up. >> that is our testimony. >> but that was not my question. be clear on that. >> one of my favorite memories was to be with you rand your wife for the reagan 100th birthday. thank you for being here. i appreciate the work you have done. i am troubled by what we have heard what happens to consumer information if it gets it the wrong hands and our aggressive people are to

get disinformation we should be held to the highest standard but october 15 cfpb released its final rules of collection the hall will mortgage disclosure act required cover banks and credit unions to collect up each loan they make it is more than double the with their current a required to collect. with the automated underwriting system property value origination in charges and discount points loan terms and prepayment penalty interest rates and loan originator identifiers this is a lot of information and although not directly related it can still be revealing a understand

regulators make use of the data but i am concerned the risk for homeowners. speaker gingrich the opm cater breech how those controls may be inadequate. how can you assure the american people their personal information is safe? >> first call you cannot but i got one of the letters of the 20 million that said my dado was preaching a one to do something called this number. water they going to do? we don't know where their breeches we don't know it is nonsense. the fact you can live through this to watch this failure and have another bureaucrat politely tell you we're save.

they don't know. if you are not offline by definition you are packable. this is a major crisis for the whole government. in the words of john mccain who is very worried we're not able to innovate rapidly enough inside the bureaucracy to keep up with the private sector evolution worldwide. always worldwide oppression and estonians and israelis we have to understand the threat. that is significant and i would encourage the committee to get people from the mightier carnegie-mellon and then you should be afraid in not be reassured. >> i believe you're right there is a briefing this morning with department of

energy in cybersecurity with real concerns and real threats with real experts who are having nightmares of what happened and this is just as widespread. just yes or no, but cfpb final rule did not stay which new data would be made publicly available. with the opportunity for public comment would be appropriate would you agree this is a good position? >> i agree. >> yes. >> joe back and focus to the doctor do you have thoughts on why the cfpb went well beyond the new reporting requirements? they love to save their data driven but doesn't that raise more privacy issues? >> it is a serious concern

with more than two dozen additional data us segments than what they ask for there was inadequate discussion with david do with it and we need that public debate before rather than afterwards. >> i agree. even before this that you could link to the courthouse records to identify individuals even without the database. >> this feels like such an overreach absolutely the wrong direction to go we need to make sure it doesn't happen. >> the gentlelady from utah. >> i have to tell you you have an idea how dangerously powerful some of these regulatory agencies are. before you get here but i cannot tell you how shocked

i am to realize that casualness we talk about collecting people's private information. . . what is being done with that data. these are the questions that is not just going from me but my constituency. so i do this work on behalf of them. we have learned that the way the cfp be uses data and

interprets the data is highly suspect and that the result, this is posted redress was not correlated with the actual harm. there was a lot of guesswork involved. the guesswork resulted in the cfp be imposing more requirements. the auto lending market which results in higher cost and less choices for the consumer. so now in addition the cfp be has been collecting data regarding credit card reports, credit reports, credit cards, mortgages, student loans, payday loans, and other financial data. over the past year i have been investigating some of that activity specifically in regards to payday loans in overdraft fees. my question is, what other

cfpb actions do you see on the horizon, what other disappearing options for services that consumers when they are looking at me to worry about losing. >> if i may, congresswoman, one of the areas we are concerned about is the ability to serve the market for short-term and small amount loans. ourour estimate is that there are 54 million customers each year in the market for small loans, short term loans for less than a year and the bureau is on the verge of decreasing significantly the access to those kind of resources. there is a payday lending role that estimates are will eliminate 80 percent of the market. we are concerned that they are looking at overdraft for people who have bank accounts use the opportunity to overdraw their account to obtain immediate short-term credit for a variety of

needs. and yet we have looked at the way that they expose data, one data segment that they put forward indicated the median average overdraft is $24 for which people pay $34. if they actually look at what happens with all of the data for an institution they discover the amount of credit that customers receive versus what they pay for for overdraft is something like seven to eight times the amount but by manipulating the data in ways no one can get at and challenge they end up promoting policies that could choke off the opportunity for overdraft. >> so far what i have seen, the people they have vowed to protect other ones being hurt the most. and i just want to say because i am not here to necessarily change the minds of my colleagues because a

lot of their minds have been made up on both sides of the aisle. i am here to make sure we are transparent and give a fair warning to the american people that if we continue to allow this to happen the only people that are at risk of them, the american people. let me just say right now, if we are not vigilant, if we do not cry out and make our voices heard that this is unacceptable and we are smart enough to make decisions and if we do not do something now the only people that are at risk that have the risk of losing everything is the american people, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from minnesota. >> thank you. thank the panel. you know, i appreciate you

having the time to discuss this issue. i would like to ask you a question. unless your profits come from deceiving consumers you should welcome the cfpb data collection. can you explain what you meant by that? >> sure. the reason we have the cfp be in the 1st place is because we have a massive regulatory failure, a financial crisis that resulted from all sorts of friends lending that was entirely unchecked, people asleep at the switch, no one looking out for consumer protection. the federal reserve board was looking out for other things. and so we created a single agency that is the voice of the american consumer, standingconsumer, standing up for american consumers and trying to prevent the kinds of practices that did not harm people with subprime mortgages. they threaten to take the american economy. unless your business model is based on unfair and deceptive practices you

should have no concern about transparency in the cfp be having the data and using it as a tool to do better consumer protection. so honestly when i 1st saw the panel lineup i thought to myself my friend mr. gingrich has a phd in history and may no a lot about that, but what does this show about big data? it turns out you actually do know a lot about big data because let me put it like this. republicans in general claim they have collected more than 300 terabytes of voter data including more than 725 billion data points on nearly 200 million american voters.

this information is matched to individuals and voter data files which contain personally identifiable information, home address, phone number, e-mail. not only are they collecting voter data, some of it lends out the data to other campaigns. they leasehaley stated a marketing firms and other private entities. for example, presidential campaign for newt gingrich 2012 reported getting $17,000 in the most recent sec reporting cycle even though that campaign dropped out of the primary more than three months before. a separate company also uses a list -- uses a list broker to sell personal information via tma direct for the low price of $120$120 a month. you can get access to nearly 500,000 individual personal

information who were never before on the market. so i had my doubts about whether our panel was qualified to offer opinions, but clearly, clearly you know something about making money off the data. i guess my question is, if it is okay for you to sell big data with personal information, why can't the cfpb rely on anonymous data to protect consumers? >> look, that is a great question. a brilliant set up. it is true that we have carefully studied the 2008 and 2012 obama campaigns and while we are still behind them and gathering metadata and don't have quite the ties they haven't silicon valley and major intellectual centers comeau we were doing everything we can to be at least as good

as using metadata. i appreciate your recognizing while we are 2nd, we are working hard to catch up. you put your finger on it. i cannot go to somebody and threatened to cut off bank loans, threatened put them in jail. peoplejail. people who happened to be on my list voluntarily signed up to get information. and they can voluntarily get off the list without having a bureaucrat: threaten. if you look at the power of the government and imagine random independent bureaucrats who aggregate to themselves the right to decide what my consumer choices should be, that is real power. we are just a private company doing private things in a free market which is why ii am so frightened to see this much power in the government. >> and making a good penny added in personal data. >> the government yields back.

the chair now recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you. let me start with a few questions, and i would like you to raise your hands if these questions apply to you. if you are in any way now or ever connected to the us consumer coalition would you kindly raise your hand. but the record reflect that mr. gingrich is raised his hand. if you are now or have ever been paid by the wise group, if you would raise your hand. wise public affairs group. thank you. mr. gingrich,you. mr. gingrich, as you is your hand both times i would like to know more. before i get there i want to go back to something you and i broached earlier and that has to do with your statement because in your statement you indicate that you are an advisor, in an

advisory capacity. i was hoping that you would do what was done when the "wall street journal" had to issue its additional statement, and that is indicate that you are a paid advisor to the wise public affairs group because you well know that the wise public affairs group owns and operates the us consumer coalition. so, i was disappointed that this was not called our attention, and it has been indicated this is not the 1st time this is been done you pride yourself and transparency. for some reason you did not reveal this money connection. you were willing to reveal that you have to advise, but you are making a profit based upon this advice

because you worked for the wise group. if i have misstated this about your working for the wise public affairs group and also being connected to the us consumer coalition would you kindly raise your hand again? let the record reflect that what i said is accurate. and this is why we bring this up. this us coalition, consumer coalition is out to emasculate the cfp be. it has published its intent. there are many of us who are of the opinion that the cfp be serves a meaningful purpose and that in serving this meaningful purpose cfp

be has done a good thing. the cfp be makes it possible for consumers to receive restitution after they have been harmed, and it is unfortunate but fair to say that if the rule that you would have us adhere to implemented, then there are many consumers who would not receive the benefits that they have already. the personally identifiable information is not by law permitted to be used for market monitoring. but it can be used for enforcement activities which means you find out that a consumer has been harmed you can then contact that consumer and so you have been harmed as was done with the four half billion dollars in relief given in that collection, 50 million in civil penalties.

125 million to consumers for auto finance enforcement defrauded, taking advantage of, 25 million and related civil penalties. mortgage lending for mortgage lending enforcement. 55 million of that in civil penalty, 20 million per student lending enforcement, 2 million related to civil monetary penalty, $19 million to consumers for payday enforcement activities. over 10 million in related civil monetary penalties. if weif we decide that we are no longer going to allow the cfp be to aggregate information for enforcement purposes we now take away these dollars that are going

to consumers because we will be able to find out who they are. the truth of the matter is enforcement activities benefit seniors. this would eviscerate it to the extent that it would be emasculated if not eviscerated such that it could not continue enforcement activities. seniors, senior, senior citizens, consumers. ideal back. >> the gentleman yields back. taking a page from the ranking member, we will you raise your hand if you are surprised that former speaker newt gingrich is fighting limited government and more transparency? you are not surprised? consistent with everything this man is done. >> i am surprised he is paid.

what i find unique is my friends across the aisle want to do everything to attack the former speaker when this is consistent with his life's work. we are talking about big data and abuse of power. ipower. i commend the speaker for coming in and lending his voice of this issue. question to the panel, do you all agree that american consumers are at risk of having their data taken from the collection at the cf pb? >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> i would say of course there is a risk. >> of course. >> is their another agency out they're that goes by the consumer financial protection bureau? anyone? >> no. >> the one that is here to protect consumers is also an agency putting consumers at

risk with the data that they collect. >> no. >> you just told me. >> it is a false construct. >> no, it is not. >> the risk in the private sector is far greater. >> it's no different. >> a big difference between the private sector and big government. if i choose to go to the dmv i no that. if i shop shop at target on people they have my information and i know it. the american consumer actually knows that the consumer financial protection bureau is collecting the information. do you think that they know that? >> i don't believe that they do. >> do they ask the people that they claim to protect if they can collect personal information? >> they go to the institutions with which people have a voluntarily entered into business relationship.

>> so they don't ask them. >> they don't. >> the very people they claim to protect they don't ask for data and put those very people at risk by housing the data. >> i guess i should be careful but i remindi remind the committee that the 4th amendment does not apply in the private sector. what the 4th amendment does is constrain the government which is what we should not lose sight of. >> that's a very good point. another concern, you made the point that this agency is better because it is not subject to lobbying and outside forces. they can do the goodwill of the people without being subject to the people. >> all agencies should be held accountable.

>> i chair the oversight committee. we have asked for countless documents, and if they don't turn them over do you think that they are accountable? >> i do. >> if they don't give me all the documents. >> if there is another agency that can come to the helen testify more than the cfpb, i'm not aware of it. >> when the model be better than if the epa, doj, health and human services, department of human services were not subject to appropriations but coming give us lipservice hearings call with the democracy be better off? >> ii understand why people want to coerce and control the american people and ensure congress cannot represent people in an effective way. i want to go back to the ranking member. if in fact the cfp be does not know about individuals

how did that money get back out? the case that i am told that they are paying white americans for racial discrimination. you cannot have it both ways. the idea of trying to stop 2007 and 2008 make some limited sense. the idea that we leap from that to deciding that we are going to look at everything anybody doesn't america remarkably secretive. >> my time is up. the chair recognizes himself for an additional five minutes and will also then recognize the ranking member for an additional five minutes. to that point i would agree with you.

personally identifiable information is taken by the cfp be contrary to prior testimony. he now agree that they do collect personally identifiable information. >> yes or no. >> you have to be clear. >> i'm going to reclaim my time. does the seat is pb collect personally identifiable information? >> the only -- >> i we will translatei will translate that. the answer is yes. >> the consumer complaint database into the supervision process. [inaudible conversations] >> by which you indicate they collect. they do collect. under arbitration cases they collect personally identifiable information. and storefront payday loans.

>> to subject the american people to cyber attacks. he tried to 1st say to this committee and to your clarified statement it is collected. >> ongoing market monitoring. >> i wanted to make two quick point. if we said that somehow j.p. morgan, jamie diamond is responsible to j.p. morgan because he appeared in front of his board twice a year would think that is ridiculous. the notion i think that's

absurd. we had a financial crisis. a number of things in the 1st has done. not a one was because of financial crisis. when they had an opportunity it punted and gave up on checking credit, down payments. set before this status year and a half ago and said that the most important part of .-dot frank were essentially gutted. essentially if you want the agency to do something you have to recognize the financial crisis was not caused by payday lending, arbitration the shoddy mortgages. in that instance --

>> the gse's. >> we basically said anyone who had anything to do with the crisis is exempt. the stop pretending this agency as was connections? >> if you are accountable to the american people by way of congress if you disclose not just the data but the purpose comeau what are you using? the nsa has been clear on the parameters in which they use the data point they collected, there has -- tell me if you disagree that the cfp be has not set up guidelines for how this data will be used. they told us a few, but would you agree that they have not thrown out?

>> gather an enormous amounts of information, keep the data in-house and parse of the pieces of it, it's like being in a court case where the prosecutor says here's the information i'm going to share which shows you are guilty that you don't have access to the other information i have. >> are going to go to gingrich one quick 2nd. the cfp be whether you like it or not is an power to make rules. i want to make sure the rules that make a good roles. but do you think that they could obtain good data the way of sampling as opposed to both data collection? i know that you have looked at a lot of polling data that is pretty representative of the country as a whole. long-term both data collection.

>> it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. if they want to know if there are patterns you can do all that by polling. if you just think about the logic of what they are now doing, what you are seeing is an effort to assimilate all of the consumer behavior in the united states and one analyzer will system for the purpose of a group of bureaucrats making a decision about whether or not it is unacceptable behavior. it's a very practical thing. they would like to have the entire economy at your fingertips so that they have control so they can decide which parts of the economy are appropriate. >> in my time is expired. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much. would you make the distinction between monitoring and the

supervisory activities? >> elaborate. >> it is, theis, the cfpb allowed to collect identifiable information? >> it is not. the dodd frank act makes that illegal and the cfpb is obeying the law. >> and if someone has information to the contrary, if you have information indicating the cfpb is collecting identifiable information would you kindly raise your hand? >> one of our concerns is that we don't know what the bureau is collecting. >> my question is -- >> we don't know. >> no one in america. >> you will not use conjecture and speculation to in some way skew this issue such the people would be confused?

happens to be of benefit. and mr. gingrich is gone so far as to say that it is imperative that we move toward abolishing the consumer financial protection bureau, abolishing it. the same desire of some of the entities that he works for. it is important for the american people to know who's working on their behalf, and you can confuse the american people with enough of this rhetoric answer to the benefits them, setback all this money $11 billion in relief to consumers and it would all be evaporated. that would not have an opportunity to get the money back that they overpaid of the money that they suffered a loss which references some kind of fraud or scam.

the personally identifiable information is used. as we go through this process it is interesting sort of a campaign under the radar entities that can't be properly identified you don't know who is on the board of directors if there is one. over million dollars

unbelievable, i agree with the ranking member that people of this country are absolutely being said that information, yes they are intelligent, yes that they can do it if get that information. when you put so much emphasis, several with reference to this organization, this mystery organization. so much more to be said, but if you want to add in the record the news article

baffling response to disclosure failure and i would also note that in this jones article there is an indication that the wise public affairs group set up the coalition, the consumer coalition and that the members of the staff seem to double as members of the coalition. does anybody no if the board of directors associated with this coalition, if you know the board member raise your hand. >> the gentleman yields back.

and i believe that concludes all the witnesses that we had. i want to thank the witnesses for the testimony and rigorous debate. five extra days to submit additional questions to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses. ask witnesses to respond promptly.

>> this omnibus spending bill, how did it come together, who weretogether, who are some of the key leaders involved in putting it together? >> on the house sign the new speaker really delegated the responsibility to the lead appropriator, appropriations chairman hal rogers of kentucky negotiating with his democratic counterparts for weeks and weeks starting with meeting the listening sessions trying to get by ends early from the rank-and-file membership and then about two weeks ago when they had poured through a number of right, thousands of writers whittled the list down rogers and enjoy, the democratic counterpart kicked it up to the leadership level where it was expected that paul ryan and the other congressional leaders would close the deal, it took longer than we expected, but it does look

like they are going to get it done by friday. >> at the speaker news conference following the gop conference meeting you asked him the question and tweeted that out, what a successful vote looks like. members will vote how they want to vote. what are you hearing about how the conference, gop conference will vote and what are you likewise hearing about democrats? >> we are hearing a little bit of opposition from nancy pelosi and some of the other democrats coming out of the meeting this morning. they are concerned about one provision specifically the provision that lifts the 40 year ban on crude oil exports. another provision they hope to be in the package was a

provisiona provision helping puerto rico as it deals with its debt crisis. so we are hearing some grumblings from both sides, but it has not been as pronounced as previous spending packages, last-minute spending packages on the republican side. paul ryan has been reaching out to members starting from the moment he took the speaker's gavel trying to incorporate members ideas, trying to get buy-in from the rank-and-file polling to these listening sessions. i asked today what a successful vote would look like. if youyou would not see specific numbers but some lawmakers are saying that they could get over 100 votes for the omnibus spending bill which would be better than some passed bills, one lawmaker predicting they get a majority of the majority

which would be roughly hundred and 24 votes, very strong vote. >> the house took up a short-term measure showing naked finish up to work, vote on friday and on thursday they take up this package of expiring tax cuts tell us more. >> well, the speaker points to the tax expenditure package is a big one for republicans. this would extend aa number of tax breaks for businesses, corporations, individuals, even farmers the total would be roughly $650 billion over ten years. that is a significant amount of change. republicans are happy about

this package. most of them probably supported in the house. less support from democrats have complained as recently as this morning that these tax breaks tend to favor corporations more than a favor working-class families. >> given that paul ryan used his interview and news conference today with reporters to talk about what is ahead in 2016 and returning to regular order, how important is the victory in the omnibus spending bill for what is ahead? >> paul ryan and many other leaders in the capitol see the bipartisan deal is an opportunity to hit the reset button on the appropriations process that have broken down in the past. if you remember harry reid

had be in filibustering republican bills that have been sent over to the senate from the house over concerns about sequester levels, he really wanted to see those levels lifted. paul ryan said today was he has been holding repeated talks with harry reid over these past few days. they are on the same page in a very general sense wanting to get back to regular order. with the two-year budget deal in place at the speaker struck with president obama and other negotiators that set up this vote that has allowed congress to pivot and hopefully get back to a more normal appropriations process. >> senior staff writer command you can follow his reporting on twitter.

>> congress is considering a $1.15a $1.15 trillion federal spending bill and is $650 billion extension. votes are likely for thursday and friday. in the senate we expect votes on both. >> took to the floor this morning to comment on the ongoing work regarding government funding and expiring tax visions. a briefa brief update on the legislation and spoke at greater length about their compromises. resident? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i said yesterday that committees

i said yesterday that committees >> mr. president, i said yesterday committees and members from both sides were making important progressf in the appropriations and tax relief negotiations. last night the committees and members reached agreement and file legislation in the house. i just participated in a productive meeting. ourour colleagues across the island discussing the matter as well. i would encourage them to do so and i would also encourage membersmb to debated.

>> last night senate and house leaders finalized bipartisan compromise. i said last night, 245 this morning. i don't know sometime in darkness of those finalized. it's really two bills.il this was not an easy process mr. president, i mentioned yesterday and sagan today i appreciate the expertise and all the good work done by

speaker ryan the leader pelosi and leader mcconnell and their staffs. i am told pleasure to work with. it's a good compromise. a longtime member of congress knows that no legislation is perfect. this is good legislation. this is truly the definedis definition of legislation, the art of wise. people can be bullheaded in majorities in the senate and house we democrats rebel to

save middle-class jobs, protect the environment, investor no what her sources for example by abstaining taxes and geothermal another technologies over hundred thousand jobs in the clean energy sector. help curb carbon emission 25 pe. and to those who counteract important steps toward climate pollution is simply not the case. over ten times more carbon emissions. the omnibus spending bill is good for jobs and clean energy and the environmentnc

and helps american families banqueting provisions thebu lower premiums. we cannot simply kick off the many beneficial policies we must also consider the troublesome provisions that wind up in the legislation. in this matter came from the house more than 200 r so-called writers and they did not wind up in the bill. many of these writers represent the worst of legislative priorities. doug frank bankingde regulations undermine labor rules, standards, boy joint employer standards protections for clean air, water, land.fi try to weaken consumer financial protection bureau's. there were efforts made to curb to create and destroyon

the candidate contribution limits. these are only a few ofhe the many that were sent from the f house and we did not allow 99 percent of these to be included. so i say again thislo compromises not perfect but it is w good, good for the american people. i want to extend my appreciation to the great staff of the white house, the president's chief of staff former college football player, strongman emotionally and physical and very forthright which i appreciate.

the officers have a very good relationship, jack of all trades at the white house. i appreciate the involvement longtime senate employee has been available any time that we needed herha which has been difficult. always available. disappointed, but the knowledge has been helpfulei. as far as it has been. longtime staffer who operated on the floor here for many years, available whenever we needed him.

we still miss him in the senate. the senate will move quickly wewe can vote on it, give the american people every confidence. >> the 1st 1st lady to work outside the home teaching a private school successfully lobbying funds. created fashion sensations saw her name mistakenly on the blacklist.

ronald reagan for help and later became his wife. these stories and more featured. the book makes a great gift for the holidays giving readers aa look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history. share the stories of americans 1st ladies for the holidays. available as a hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore. followed by assistant minority leader dick durbin.

this is about 40 minutes.of >> the senator from arizona. >> i rise to call attention today sadly to the triumph a of porkbarrel parochialism in this year's omnibus appropriations bill and particularly a policy provision that was airdropped into this bill inll direct contravention to the national defense authorization act which we will have us taxpayers subsidizing russian aggression and comrade capitalism. another two years ago russian president vladimir putin the 1st time since the days of hitler and stalin that brute force haveal s been projected across an internationally recognized border to dismember a

sovereign state on the european continent. more29 than 8000 people have died in this conflict including 298 innocent people aboard malaysian airlines flight 17 who were murdered by vladimir putin's loyal supportersup the imperialists campaign and eastern europe force recognition for anyonefr who is not yet convinced i government that is hostile to hisee values and seeks to challenge the international order and that is why they congress imposed tough sanctions against russia and the enormous and enormously corrupt business empires.

restricting the air force using russian-made rd 180 rocket engines. manufactured by aa russian company controlled by some n of putin's top cronies. we did so not only because our nation should not rely on russia to access space but because it is simply ave moral to help subsidize russia's intervention in ukraine p and line the pockets of putin's gang of thugs who profit from the sale of russian rocket engines. last year the defense authorization bill exempted fiveia of the engines that united launch alliance purchased i before the invasion of ukraine. this allow the space launch company that for years has enjoyed a monopoly on

watching military satellites to use those russian rocket if the secretary ofrm defense determines it was necessitated by national security.l since the passage of the act11 in the senate 89 to 11iz russia has continued as we all no to destabilize in europe with aggressive military behavior. putin has sent advanced weapons to iran, violated the 1987 and rearrange nuclear force treaty and in aa profound echo of the cold war russia has intervened militarily in syria on behalf of the motorist regime of bishara al-assad. clearly russian behavior has only gotten worse. that is why a few weeks ago congress acted again and past the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act a. the nda authorized $300 million and security assistanceit and intelligence

support for ukraine to resist russian aggression. at the same time the bill number of russian engines could be needed to maintain competition in the nationalm security space launch program and facilitate a smooth transition to rockets with us-made engines. therefore the legislation allowed you la to use a total of nine russian engines. limiting the use of russian rocket engineste debated for months. the committee on armed services had a vigorouste debate over this important issue command amendment was offered to maintain a restriction on the air force's useot of russian rocket engines and in a positive vote of the committee the amendment was

adopted. we then considered hundreds of amendments to this bill in the senate floor over a period of two weeks. we literally considered hundreds of amendments and did so transparently it washo called up to change the provision of that authorization bill concerning the rd 180 rocketth engines. the legislation passed and 71 votes.au3. actually considered a 2nd time on the floor and past 91 to three. i want to emphasize again one of the things i was proud of for years as we do debatede the national defense authorization bill.r

there was no amendment on rocket engines. why? t if they were members of the senate who did not like the provisions in the bill we had an open process to amended, but they did not. they did notey because they w knew they could not pass an amendment that would remove that provision and the defense authorization act so in the dead of night we just find out hours before we are supposed to vote they put in a restriction which dramatically changes thatt provision that was done in an open and transparent process to their everlastingr shame. in the dark of night.ef no one consulted on the fence -- the armed services committee.

this bill including its provision limiting the use of fiscal year 16 including its16 including its provision limiting the use h of russian rocket enginesor was debated for months. the committee had a vigorous debate, as i mentionedoi command here is my point, the senate have this debate, had ample time and opportunity to have this debatehr, and through months of this debate thougham senator came to the senate floor to make the case that we needed to buy more russian rocket engines. though sen. introduced ane amendment on the floor to lift the restriction on buying more russian rocket engines. .. including the house of representatives, voted overwhelmingly and repeatedly to maintain this restriction. this is a policy issue, not a money issue. nowhere in the realm of the appropriations committee. it was resolved as it should

have been on the defense policy bill. and here we stand -- here we stand with a 2,000-page omnibus aeption pros bill, crafted in secret -- in secret crafted, members outside of the appropriations committee were not brought into the foreign relation of this legislation, no debate. most of us are seeing for the first time this bill this morning. and buried within it is a policy provision that would effectively allow unlimited purchase >> >> what's going on? cabellas i recently asked to waive the previous restrictions on the basis of

national security from the first security space launch the defense department declined. what did it do when it could not get its way? they give you facture prices over at the department of defense there is no similar restriction so they rushed to a sign the rocket engines to the nine national security in launches despite the fact the artificial crisis has been seized upon capitol hill leading sponsors. from said the senior senator from illinois. and again secretly don

transparently with the 2,000 page omnibus appropriations bill but the there senator shelby or senator derbent raised objections to the bill we have been authored of the seventh floor. >> but then as i have said with those jurisdictions in favor of maintaining the restriction that my colleagues crafted this provision in secret with no debate fox as expressed into national authorization acts

it will enable the monopolistic corporation for hundreds of millions of dollars to vladimir putin and his cronies this is outrageous and shameful. and full of hypocrisy especially for my colleagues to claim to care about the ukraine and punish russia for its aggression how can it to european countries and governments they need to hold the line to maintain sanctions when we get our own policy in this way? how can we tell our french allies and then try to by

rockets? we have tried to do everything we can to get our friends is that ukraine the tools to defend themselves from russian aggression. but they have chosen to reward vladimir putin and his cronies with hundreds of millions of dollars. a rocket factory in alabama and a benefit from this. gullying a benefit from this decision but have no doubt the real winners are vladimir putin running the russian military industrial complex. and wish them explain to the american taxpayer exactly who we are doing business with so to investigate how

much the air force pays how much the russians received and britain's russia by inflating the price. and with comrade capitalism and with petitions close friends which manufactures finding it was operating at a loss to be captured intermediary companies. in addition there reported

it sells of rocket engines to a tiny 5% of it that stood to collect $93 million with a multiyear deal of these engines? so one contract alone with no negligible worth but still collected $80 million so remember that is a five person of the. with the $80 million of excessive pass through charges.

this will continue to receive this money. according to university who refused -- review the reuters documents cover the bottom line is the joint venture between the russians and americans takes us to the cleaners. he said he reviewed the pentagon audits ended time anywhere in your to read the audit was. >> and with the department of defense leading questions from the appropriations committee just a few days ago.

the department believes united states will have a domestic manufacturers replacement engine for the space launch before 2022. and then to make those predictions but we don't really know. the ramp dash up funding for the manufactured in june. in to make this a priority. if you have a replacement engine ready it should be focused on meeting the goals but the proponents of the rocket engines site claims

spivey air force 2 be at least the engines to create a bridge when a domestic manufacturers engine becomes available. en no matter but happens can provide fully redundant capabilities and eventually the heavy launch vehicles. the atlas five is not going anywhere soon to get them through 2019. and as we alluded no action is required today for a shared access.

with that defense authorization bill restriction in the javelin and source of services with the department of defense even confirm to have enough engines to compete for the upcoming competitions and that is dependent upon the management strategy so we have senator shelby and senator turbid waters your priorities? as we speak their resisting aggression but with this omnibus appropriations bill to send hundreds of millions to his cronies to the base as russia continues to

occupy and stabilize you prayed what kind of message does that send to those who protect their country? and continuing to send weapons to iran. how do we do best when they continue to violate the intermediate range nuclear treaty? had to redo this when the bombs the forces of syria with deicide received? >> i am understand some constituents believe they would benefit from this provision put from "the new york times" editorial board says when sanctions are necessary and must be willing to pay a cost after

leaning on france because of the invasion of you crave united states could hardly in says don continuing to buy national security hardware i repeat that is "the new york times". the editorial don't bring down on russian sanctions. >> but for the record and make the promise it is not removed from the omnibus. with the defense authorization act. at this point we maintain

the fed genuine crisis emerged would not compromise the national security interest in space. and to look at the complete end in death and a restriction ibf avoiding the year over year conflict in such back-and-forth with a shared desire to end the reliance from the space launch supply chain while injecting instability that instability threatens that reliable launch to the national security satellites and the fragile bays that supports them. but i cannot allow the

appropriations committee or any other member of this body to kraft a take-it-or-leave-it bill to allow a corporation to do business with the oligarchs with of belligerent and crimea and ukraine will have a right to address this issue in a larger context. the way the congress is supposed to work to authorize international of defense programs? the responsibility of the authorizing committee to make sure in the case of defense the armed services committee to authorizes the

funding and the policies that fall under the armed services committee. that is a their responsibilities it is within their authority but they don't think the funding is called for or necessary. they can add funding if they want to but this is a complete and more violation this was raised to the subcommittee on the armed services committee addressed on the floor with hundreds of amendments that were proposed but yet what was decided by the armed

services committee remained intact with ledger jet -- direct confrontation a direct cancellation of a provision in the wall. when no one knew but second of all indirect violation of the relationship between the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee. so i say to my colleagues if you let this go baby you our

next may be an amendment or a program to authorize the committee on the floor in in the middle of the night in december going at a session in 48 hours that up pops a provision to negates the entire operating committee? i say to my colleagues that you could be next that is why a subsidizing vladimir putin is outrageous enough but if we're going to allow these fundamental changes of programs and proposals have

policies debated and voted on in the open then we are destroying the fundamental structure of how the united states senate in united states congress is supposed to work. so madame president i yield the floor. >> mr. president the senior senator from arizona came to the floor this morning and raised a question about a provision of the omnibus - - omnibus bill relating to the department of defense during that course the senior senator from arizona used my name on the floor repeatedly it was refreshing and i relieved he has not

attacked me for three weeks i was feeling fearful he was under the weather but he is in fine form and feels good and i welcome him back for another attack on me personally so let's talk about the issue that he raised it is complicated but extremely important with the is an - - the defense of united states in the early 2000's to companies made rockets that launched satellites in competed but one another but in the early 2000 and i don't understand why, and they made an argument the nation would be better off if they emerged into one and then provided the rockets to launch and

collect information and argued of their work together it would cost less and a merged with the approval of department of defense they would bid on the satellite launch what was good as the product was reliable watching with great reliability but the bad part is the cost went through the roof almost 65% since they created the national launch alliance costing taxpayers about $3 billion more than it did in the past so they argued it would eliminate competition but the cost went up dramatically then a new player arrived.

speesix -- space x decided to get into the business naturally the united states said be my guest approved you can do this in a way we can count on you. when we need a satellite to collect information we want to make sure it is successful. over the years space x improved a and you all been developed the capacity to launch satellites to the point where nasa used space x rockets successfully and has reached a point the department of defense has said you are capable and will be certified to compete for department of defense business. that is to the credit of space x they reached that

point. i thought this was an exciting development because i thought we would have competition between the united paunch alliance the owner said publicly we can do this for a fraction of the cost to the taxpayers but then invited them to the subcommittee we put ceos at the table at the same time about their operations in liabilities than at the end of the hearing to offer the opportunity to submit 10

questions to the ceo. a complete record and a good one showing me how we move to a new stage of rocket science and capacity to serve the united states to keep us safe and the cost down and that should be the goal. then there was a complication. vladimir putin decided to take aggressive action in invading georgette a and ukraine and other actions by him that we consider confrontational tended to freeze up the relationship why is that important? because the engine used to

launch america's defense satellite was an engine built in russia. people started to save wiring giving russia in blood near putin the opportunity to sell rocket engines to the united states and why would be dependent on russia for rocket engines? so how do we exclude them and still have competition? and that brings us here today trying to find the right to combination without engaging the russians. the senior senator from arizona is the chair of the defense authorizing committee the senior senator

from arizona started including provisions that you l8 cannot use those engines and compete for business using those engines in the united states. so the air force had a letter sent in may of this year signed by the secretary of defense the director of national intelligence suggesting that this could cause a problem in terms of the availability it would be

quickly depleted but if anything that linkage made it more difficult for the united launch alliance in i might add we don't have the alternative engine the united blige alliance uses that now they told us it will take a river between five and seven years for that to happen. i am understand it is a complex assignment it seems like a long time but it points to the dilemma that we face if ula cannot bid

for the department of defense with the sole source of engines we tried to move to competition by a injecting their prohibition beyond a certain number so we have allowed is language that gives one year of flexibility to the department of defense it of course, it means ula will use russian engines for the bidding.

with the aggression of russia. and how we need to be strong in response. ineffectually travel to ukraine about the aggression and wide united states needs to be strong in response. behalf to be careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face. in to jeopardize the needs to keep us safe and what they said to senator mccain that was not discussed is the original bill that says the same fame

there should be some flexibility that it would be shortsighted to make it impossible for ula to even bid on future satellite launches. god forbid something happens at that point we're in a terrible situation. we cannot keep our country safe. nobody wants that to occur. it gives one year to continue to work with ula for competitive the bidding and comes in with a lower bid. but for the meantime to have the availability of sourcing

i am impressed with all of these companies boeing has its headquarters in my home state and i am proud of that. but my initial promise they should have competition and they have made this more complex to be the ultimate goal of quality engines to keep america safe with the alternative supplier that is the best outcome possible.

this section is critical to national security have to ensure the department of defense and intelligence agencies to say it is competitive in the half to generate competition to bring an end to the reliance for the rocket engines. i wish that was not the case i wish it was positive in every aspect but it is not. but december we move away to american is better for the nation.

but to recognize the need for the reliance on the engines to put our money where our mouth is. what to do $43 million is making sure but the question is how we manage the launch. but the general provision allows for the space launch competition to prevent real competition in 2016.

of how we reach this point there is good faith temple sides and from the senior senator from arizona. live today where america is safe and the many taxpayers is well spent. >> on the house side paul ryan delegated day responsibility to negotiate with the democratic counterparts for weeks and weeks starting with the

sessions to get by and very early from the rank-and-file the membership in then two weeks ago then thousands of riders with us counterpart's kicking it up to the leadership level as they would close the deal to take longer than expected that we would get it done by friday. >> at the conference be the u.s. the question the view of the sale of a successful republican vote looks like but what are you hearing about the g.o.p. conference?

we're hearing about the opposition from nancy pelosi and the democrats coming at of their meeting this morning. and specifically with the bay and on the crude oil exports and but the grumbling ensembles sides to be as pronounced as the previous spending package on the republican side as paul ryan is reaching out to members starting from the moment he took the speaker's gavel to get by yen from the

rank-and-file and i asked today what a successful vote would look like he would not stay specific numbers to said they could get over 100 votes for the omnibus spending bill which could be better them passed bills but to get the majority of the majority is roughly 124 votes would be a very strong vote for speaker brian. >> bathhouse to cut the short-term measure to finish the omnibus and vote on friday and thursday they take up the package of the expiring tax cuts. >> speaker ryan pointed to the tax extender package but

extents a number of tax breaks for businesses and corporations and individuals to make some of those permanent the total could be $650 billion over 10 years that is a significant amount of change so republicans are happy about this package that those who complain that favor corporations more than day favor working-class families. >> host: given up all right use the conference today to talk about what is

ahead in 2016, how important is of victory in the omnibus spending bill for what is ahead in 2016? >> with the bipartisan deal as an opportunity to set the reset button and it has broken down in the past. if you remember harry reid to have a republican bill that was sent over from the house with concerns about with the sequester levels to behold the repeated talks over in the past few days and the are of it -- on the same page to get back to regular order with the

two-year budget deal in place that was struck with the negotiators to set up the vote into hopefully get back to a more normal appropriations process. >> the key for joining us.

>> he starts off in 1727 this was about improving the community and individual morals and share ideas. to believe it was possible to rely ourself.

>> the north atlantic council decided to get to raising goal commander, eisenhower to equip and train the integrated nato forces to be support akio national forces the supreme commander would be responsible for a single

international force. >> mr. president last night after months of discussion to give a procedural path forward with millions of

american with tax relief and they're protecting americans from tax hikes but to make those tax provisions permanent. that has plagued congress for decades giving greater certainty to u.s. taxpayers across the board. it was the latest of a long line. with some of the efforts of 2015. and by that next deadline or the crisis.

to simply kicked every can down the road? and to have bipartisan legislation into have long term funding for infrastructure projects. but maybe congress is too divided and it is almost a year early exercise of futility from bipartisan bickering end no one survey

not a taxpayer from the highway funding bill. that would effectively end the cycle. with the joint committee on taxation and referring to has extenders with 52 separate provisions and requires to reach agreements. and to reduce that number down with a significant relief stefan going extenders. and then with that mentality

to further relieve the pressure. and to allow families and businesses of the future. into making it more favorable with the tax form in the future. and then to make those tax policies permanent. in debt will do the same to the job creators and put simply wore permanences the

good thing to provide just what we need. take a few minutes of those key provisions. i will start with some of the biggest priorities on the other side of the aisle as the stimulus and it made the tax could even more refundable. and the child tax credit. and to be from the government and then have had to be extended but going into these negotiations the enhancements and ctc with a

partially refundable college tax credit created in the stimulus. and those that benefit from the credits that is particularly susceptible. and then use tens of billions of dollars in doing so allowed the negotiations to move forward. but the democrats agreed to improve the program's integrity. to improve improper payments going forward.

the integrity provisions are the most robust improvements with the abuse of the tax cut of nearly 20 years. is essentially it is the very definition of the win-win situation when they were included in this legislation as a result. we all knew there was fraud. that allows small businesses to grow and invest with tax benefits. for everyone in the business community to improve for make permanent the research

and development tax credits the areas where this is something we fought for every year. but there was no permanence to it. that is a great step forward. giving companies greater incentives to be a long time parity and although not able to make than a permanent. to also make key improvements to be competitive of the world stage.

did with the csc corporation and. most of those tax provisions to employ american workers if you want to see the u.s. companies remain u.s. companies. with the significant tax relief. >> the employer wage credit for military employees. with the expansion of eligibility for that tax

credits. all of these provisions benefit families in various regions of our legislation will insurers millions of americans can benefit and will go on into the future. also was significant tax relief to charity. to make sure charitable distribution from the i.r.a. remains tax-free in a permanent basis also to be made permanent to incentivize the s corporation to make charitable contributions. i have covered quite a bit of ground and i am just going through the highlights

i have even gotten to the obamacare provisions. most of the outrages rivers in the process with the provisions of the affordable care act. those that agreed to bail out in to prop up the failing obamacare changes. this exercise will never be used to solidify obamacare and never for a second considered allowing that to happen. as democrats have begun to recognize with the elements within need to suspend one of the more harmful taxes of

obamacare. with that moratorium on the medical device tax. one of the more unpopular poorly drafted taxes with republicans and democrats alike. not only because it demonstrates the opposition but it will help patients and consumers throughout the country see the health care costs go up because of the medical device tax. i have offended advocate but at least we will for the next two years we will see what happens. with the tax relief and with

the permanence of the tax code is the biggest reason we need to pass this legislation and. this legislation will look a lot different. but that is not where we live. here in the real world i know i say that a lot with the importance of compromise almost every time we have considered the high-profile pieces of legislation but that does not make my a arguments and the less true.

if anyone was so inclined the excuse is to vote no. in all of us on the economy in the future and the legislative efforts. but before i close a lot of work has gone into this legislation and. to hear a number of champions in congress. but some of those efforts here today which this bill

makes permanent of both sides of the aisle to issue a priority is as bad a top priority of mine for many years in this effort over the years. dell also be made in permanent to be leaders on this issue also permit the depreciation for restaurants and retail the provision the senators end in addition to

make that permanent but this accomplishes that goal. the senator roberts has been a strong supporter of that as corporation for charitable all contributions. and also to be a leader with the deduction with the charitable distributions and then also remain tax-free.

with conservation and purposes. and it has also made permanent and has been a strong supporter of that provision and to acclimate the low housing tax credits. something senator roberts that they would work out for some time. they have 10 active members. . . his proposed modification is included in our bill, as is an unprecedented five-year extension for this credit. we appreciate your work on this, senator portman, as we have seen you work so hard on so many of these issues. we're grateful for you, and i'm really grateful to have all these people on my committee.

of course, this was not an exhaustive list, mr. president. for right now, i'm focusing mainly on temporary provisions that will make permanent by passing the path act. if i start talking about my colleagues' -- various colleagues' -- various the extensions, we would be b here all day. i do, however, want to give credit where it is due on the obama care provisions. for years now opposition to the misguided medical device tax, the most charitable description you will ever hear from me, has been gaining momentum. throughout that time several toators have worked hard push for appeal. as i noted earlier, our, our bill would take a significant stepp forward in this effort by imposing a two-year moratorium on this job

i have not mentioned my g colleagues on the other side, but in the clubha which are has stood with me on so many on the other side as well in getting rid of that tax. we have got to do that. as you can see, let me just say, it is a pleasure toat work with sen.senator wyden, ranking member wyden hass. worked with us on many of these issues and so have others on the democratic side of the aisle. but the leadership has come from the people i have mentioned, and i think i just want to make sure that the people understand this were listening. as you can see, thissee, this reflects the efforts and priorities of manyme members of the senate, not just members of the finance committee.

as they would have to be,be, and i think my democratic friends for helping. i am particularly grateful for the work my colleaguestu on the finance committee have put in to advance the interest of their constituents. each of our members has put a huge stamp apaolo luck they will be permanently enshrined in the tax code. these provisions permanent.ke there are others every senators constituents have high priority items. that is ae big reason why it is importanteo. again, i amng happy to bring together democrats and republicans on this important set of tax changes that really is long, long overdue. >> you're watching c-span.

next the senate foreign relations hearing, then the hearing on mass data collection by the consumer financial protection bureau. later the senate majority and minority leaders on the federal spending bill followed by senators mccain and durbin debating competition in the aerospace industry. >> on capitol hill tomorrow morning the house oversight and government reform committee will examine the screening process for foreigners entering the us looking at any vulnerabilities in the immigration system live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. tomorrow afternoon treasury secretary jack loup jersey un security council meeting on how to combat isys funding and other terrorist groups. finance ministers and senior officials from all 15 members of the un security council will attend.

live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> the reagan narrative, a lightweight grade b actor with premature armchair which is what gerald ford set in 1976. even with all the administration, historians have consistently rated reagan low. i believe out of ideological bias. >> sunday night historian craig shirley discusses his book last act, look at ronald reagan's life after leaving the white house and the way he has been remembered since his death. >> i grew up in the 80s, developed in the 80s. the the80s. the house in time. i also write about the facts. and i don't believe that anybody else makes things up. and i think we have

succeeded in repositioning people's thinking about ronald reagan so that the picture that emerges is of a very serious, deep thinking, considerate, solicitous man. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern on q&a. >> former us ambassador to pakistan and us ambassador to afghanistan among the experts on the region testifying before senate committee examining us strategy in afghanistan.

>> we want to thank the witnesses for being here and certainly all our committee members. in lieu of reading my normal opening statement i want to make a general statement that yesterday we had a classified brief. what we hear and classified briefings about the direction and the signals and all of the things that are occurring in afghanistan directly contradict some of the rosy public statements that are made about what is happening within the country , it is actually alarming to go to classified session and then to hear reports about those discussions in the armed services committee itself.

arbitrary numbers that have been thrown out. we have 9800 troops there, and yet from what i can tell we are continuing to lose territory, lose momentum. the status in afghanistan is today we're moving in a very negative direction on the ground. so obviously that is concerning. we know that the president has a vast amount of experience. somewhat of a technocrat, there are issues that need to be dealt with appropriately within the country, but whencountry, but when you look at all the security issues that are being dealt with certainly it takes away from his ability to implement those. so we are concerned about security. we are concerned about any type of reconciliation that

is taking place. the understand the concern that exists relative to pakistan and let's face it, to a, to a degree hedging their bets but from the outside as you watch what is happening there the taliban are gaining ground, and that is just a fact. i hope this hearing today, obviously the 1st public hearing 12 must be eliminated.eliminated. we thank both of you for your service and for being here command we thank you for your willingness to help us with understanding what is actually happening on the ground. withwith that i will turn to senator cardin. >> thank you, mr. chairman for calling this hearing and ai want to thank our witnesses for being here. i just want to follow the example of the chairman and layout some basic concerns

that came out as a result not just of yesterday's briefing but as we have seen of late that how we are doing on the security front in afghanistan seems like we're losing ground. a major concern showing a real shortcomings in the afghan national defense and security forces. what have we learned from that and how we going forward? secondly, reconciliation process whether there can be a stable government in afghanistan representing the interests of the country and the role the pakistan is playing, on a sincere partner in piece are they just trying to protect there interest, the relationship in the region. third the development progress in afghanistan since 2,001, the resources we put in to afghanistan, it

has certainly been a question. the economy is not performing anywhere near a level that would be susceptible for sustainability and progress. yesterday the new york times, an article my question as to whether the taliban key to usaid projects which i would like to get some answers on as to what is the short-term long-term gains and whether our investments are really being beneficial and afghan future and then lastly the anticorruption efforts. we know the president made strong commitments then you have received virtually no progress in dealing with the corruption issues in afghanistan. so what i hope it will do, we have been here for a while. build one. we've got a a lot of good things in afghanistan. this is not the country was in 2,001 which is a positive.

things have gone wrong. have we learned from what has gone wrong so we can take appropriate adjustments to make sure we have an effective policy for afghan future? i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> thank you, sir. we will now turn our witnesses on the 1st panel,panel, two administration witnesses represent the state department and usaid whose portfolios include afghanistan and pakistan. pakistan. the 2nd panel includes three informed experts on afghanistan in the region. our 1st witness is the respected ambassador richard olson, united states special representative for afghanistan and pakistan and recently returned a master from islamabad. wewe thank you for your career in public service and for being here today. second witnesses donald l sampler junior, assistant to the administration for pakistan and afghanistan and

usaid. we thank you for you and your cohorts do around the world to further us interest. with that, if you would begin, we would appreciate it. and i wouldi would say as a courtesy to my fellow panelists, the deadline on the couple issues as 21 minutes relative to the other thing we are working on. i'm a step ina step in and out a little bit. it is not out of disrespect. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, it is not to appear before you today to discuss the us afghanistan relationship in our continuing effort toward security and self-reliance. allow me to thank the members of the committee and the american people for their generous and steadfast efforts in afghanistan. in particular, i want to honor the thousands of military personnel, diplomats and professionals who have served and continue to serve in afghanistan.

mr. chairman, i recently returned from my 1st visit in my current position as special representative for afghanistan pakistan to kabul and islamabad and can report we are at a critical moment in our work in afghanistan in the region as we push for the launch of an afghan led peace process during the traditional winter low between afghanistan and the taliban. the administration remains committed to a stable and secure afghanistan and remain convinced a negotiated settlement between the government of afghanistan and the taliban is the surest way to end the conflict. the government of national unity which came to power in afghanistan sister embodies the potential that afghanistan has to thrive for, weathered tremendous adversity in its 1st year and retains its democratic mandate and has demonstrated

a commitment to be aa partner with us in addressing our common security interest. it is no secret the bilateral relationship between afghanistan and pakistan has been difficult. the pres. and prime minister have demonstrated true leadership in trying to bridge the divide. both sides show readiness to engage, put differences aside and to build on the meeting between afghan government and taliban representative that took place in july. now the taliban have a choice to join good-faith negotiations for peace or to continue to fight aa war they cannot win and face the consequences. a negotiated afghan afghan settlement while difficult as possible and can be accomplished while preserving the gains made in the education, health, and the rights of women and minorities in the past decade. even as we push for progress

on peace the united states has a critical role to play in supporting continued development of afghanistan security capability. president obama announced they will maintain 9,800 troops in afghanistan through the end of 2016 to train, advise, and assist afghan forces. i believe we are pursuing the right course in afghanistan but i want to be candid that great challenges remain. while the security in afghanistan remain volatile must give credit to the afghan national defense and security forces have demonstrated tenacity, ability, resolving countering attacks. while much work on development remains over the past decade us assistance made a significant intangible difference in the lives of the afghan people and has been critical to maintaining stability. per capita gdp has more than quadrupled for the 1st time millions of afghans have access to reliable electricity healthcare, and independent media. according to the un we and other donors have achieved a

greater increase in the standard of living continued support for afghanistan. next year at the warsaw nato summit in the brussels ministerial an afghan development of october we will have an opportunity to work with our international partners to lay out a plan for future security and economic assistance. of course our assistant comes with clear conditions in the concept of mutual accountability remains firmly in place. advancing the fight against corruption will be of particular importance in that regard. the peace process track cannot succeed unless it is paired with a strong and credible commitment to afghanistan security and its economic priorities and political leadership. addressing these challenges

will not be easy, but i, but i look forward to working with you on them in the weeks and months to come. thank you very much. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. let me also begin by thanking the individuals present today the served in afghanistan as well as the families and ami'm proud to include among those brave american diplomats in the us department of state a workers from usaid and the thousands of men and women working shoulder to shoulder with us as partners in afghanistan. i would also like to recognize the afghan to continue to work and sacrifice to make the country a place that is safe, secure, and a good neighbor in the region. any strategy we discuss here today is predicated upon the continued dedication and resolute support.

our work reflects usaid mission, we partnered to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies while advancing america's own security and prosperity. usaid civilian assistance programs are critical component of our core us national security objective of a stable afghanistan than al qaeda and other terrorists cannot use the threaten the united states, our interest in persons abroad. we remain committed to assistance programs that are effective, accountable, and sustainable. in my written testimony submitted for the record i detail the rigorous oversight and monitoring methods that have been implemented to prevent waste, fraud,waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure american investments in afghanistan are making a lasting impact. usaid central goal is to promote a stable, inclusive, and increasingly prosperous country.

afghanistan is made remarkable development gains across multiple sectors thanks to the whole of government efforts to the united states along with international partners, the afghan government and the afghan people. the key element calls for making durable the significant achievements in health, education, the gains of women focusing on economic growth in fiscal sustainability of the government of afghanistan and supporting legitimate and effective afghan governance and in turn promoting stability. usaid strategy going forward will be founded on successes, informed by failures, and shaped and shaped by consultations with the government of afghanistan, other donors command us interagency. the successes have been remarkable, specific examples including life expectancy increasing in afghanistan from 42 years to over 62 years, maternal

mortality rate declined by 75 percent and child mortality decreased by 62 percent. in 2,002 there were less than a million afghans in school. now there are millions of children in school and over a 3rd's. in 2,002 there were virtually no telephones in afghanistan. any call international had to be made of her handheld satellite phone. the combined phone company coverage is 88 percent of the afghan population. the telecommunication industry is afghanistan's greatest source of foreign direct investment, the largest for mayor in taxes to the government of afghanistan andin the biggest employer in afghanistan employing over a hundred 30,000 afghans. in 2,002 when i 1st arrived only 6% had access to electricity. today more

than 30% is connected to the grid. the government with the support of usaid established afghanistan's electrical utility just about six years ago. today they no longer receive a subsidy from the government and have turned a profit each year since 2,011. while it is never comfortable to talk about failures in an engagement as complicated and difficult is afghanistan failures are inevitable. what is important is the failures be recognized as quickly as possible and remedies be put in place to correct the failure and prevent recurrence. usaid works hard around the world to be an agile adaptive and learning organization. since 2,002 in virtually every sector of our portfolio wewe've had to make adjustments based on our own monitoring and evaluation for on the observations of various auditors of the media.media. examples of the kind of modifications in education we designed and launched in community-based education program implemented by the ministry of education but we quickly discovered the ministry was not yet capable of executing the program.

no funds were dispersed and we redesigned the different mechanism. the reward was made to unicef and has resulted in over 800 community-based schools and 700 accelerating learning centers for out of school youth. finally oura strategy will be shaped by consultations with the government of afghanistan, interagency partners and other donors. the tokyo conference established a mutual accountability framework. in 2,014 the london ministerial they know well the risk and sacrifices. since 201,451 civilians have been killed and close to a thousand wounded.

as usaid looks to 2016 and beyond the agency is committed to making every effort to safeguard taxpayer funds and ensure progress is maintained and made durable in order to secure our overall national security objectives. it is an honor to share with you a small glimpse and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for that testimony.testimony. i am going to do some interaction along the way. >> once again, thank you for the role that you have played in the development. it isit is a much different country than it was in 2,001. there is reason for concern about the future. first let me ask one of the lessons learned?

have we made strategic changes in the security? >> thank you, senator. the attack was representative of a real challenge that the government of afghanistan faces. the taliban have been waging a particularly aggressive campaign in 2015 and throughout the fighting season. as you know, the afghan national defense and security forces were forced to temporarily see territory and parts of how monde as well as in the city center and over the course of two weeks the taliban occupied can do.

you know, as general campbell has acknowledged, this was a public relations war for the taliban. it is important to note that the afghan national security forces did retake conduce and the country has maintained control since that time. the government of afghanistan is in the process of looking at lessons learned from that experience, and there has been a report with the government of afghanistan and they are considering the responses that they will make. my understanding is it includes greater lash out between provincial authorities and central authorities which is perhaps one of the contributing factors to the weakness in

conduce. i would of course have to defer to my colleagues from the defense department on any specific response in terms of military and the train this is program. >> during my opening comments of the troubling article that i read in the new york times that indicates that usaid programs are very much dependent on taliban support and therefore taliban getting more support as a result wrap strengthening their hold contrary to our objective in the tribal areas. are we focus to five short-term gains to try to help in regards to our

military objectives, long-term development goals that we are trying to achieve. we confuse the two get into trouble. is there any truth to the report that the taliban is taking credit for the aide coming in the tribal areas? >> thank you for the question. headlines like the one you cited are not how i like to start my morning. the work is good and the new york times stories are typically fact-based. this one has some issues that i will challenge. there was athere was a study done that this report was based on measuring the impact of stabilization activities.activities. this was requested by usaid and was our own attempt to examine. they studied over 5,000 villages, conducted a hundred thousand interviews, and of the 5,000 villages they studied either five or

13 depending on how you on the map they found a correlation, not causality but correlation correlation between our programs and an increase in taliban support. the story focuses unnaturally in my opinion and was basically 110th of 10th of 1 percent of the work we did in afghanistan where in fact we discovered ourselves that may have been a correlation between our work and support for the taliban. what is not mentioned is the other 99.9 percent which either showed no change for an actual improvement in support for the government. in afghanistan as is the case everywhere all politics are local. these are important to give afghanistan villages a sense that there part of the community. with respect to the 2nd half of your question about short-term versus long-term part of the challenge of being a development professional in place like afghanistan is

making sure the important initiatives that are done to achieve short-term gains correspond with and support long-term development objectives which is not always easy and in some cases is problematic. the other part of my job is the team that i have in afghanistan that works for amb. olson and mckinley do an excellent job in making sure we do get return on our investment. >> thank you. ambassador olson, do not think we will make progress unless we really have changes in anticorruption activities. they made strong statements about fighting corruption but have not seen much action. the confirmed attorney general or providing a strong monitoring and evaluation committee passing laws and implementing the ei ti.

do you have a game plan for holding afghanistan to accountability on the anticorruption efforts of not just the statement of the president which i think is sincere but has not been backed by action. >> thank you for the question, senator. we are indeed intent on holding the government of afghanistan to its promises to address the question of endemic corruption in afghanistan. just to review aa little bit what has happened so far, we were encouraged by the decision to reopen the investigation into the bank scandal and the effort of the government to recover assets. we were then discouraged by the fact th