a system, we'll set up a thinking group to how going into 2015. how does africa take care of what has changed on the continent. a lot has changed in africa since the 2000 mdps but around the world. so having consultations under ground, in every country on the continent. last year finally in may they decided now has come the time to put all these ideas together, reduce all these millions of priorities that every country had and say how do we now put these things into a framework that will only not only reflect

africa's priority but also see how the rest of the globe. 2015, whatever it is, it has to be. we're lucky, as an envoy of the president, to be part of that process, to be part of the process of the u.n. development, u.n. for 2015 visions, high-level panel that had 24 members from a different part of the world and also co-chair by indonesia and britain. just the same we handed over to secretary-general report, the eu met and decided, well, it's the time to create this group. it's about creating a group of experts, which was the case of the mpgs. okay. start with a political process. we'll eliminate a few head of

states. they decided two head of states each of the economic regions of africa. two from west africa, guinea and liberia, two from north africa, algeria, two from central africa, utopia more ittious, south africa and we set up the head of the -- and the president was named to chair the process. we have been having meetings. the big problem how do you reduce 60 or 70 priorities into workable framework. after many meetings, the

high-level committee of head of states was held in new york in september in the un. first thing we did was the issue, what are the issues across the continent. what are the main issues? we came up with five. the five pillars that will be the engine for the development in africa but also serve as our part of the development process. where is the world going. it was not just about africa's priorities but also looking at where the world is going, what kind of world do we want to live in, what kind of partnership do we want to create or establish. i think one of the biggest problems -- i won't say problem but one of the down sides of the

mdgs was the partnership was not taken where it was supposed to go. therefore, the partnership becomes an aspect of the process. we had structural economic transformation and inconclusive growth. this was very important. it was important to the president. he said it during the process, kept repeating, no matter what you do, no matter how you're going to deal with social issues, if you don't deal with the economic factor, you still have problems. because that is the source of inclusion. that's the source of exclusion. that's where people are excluded. that's where people that feel that they are not part of the process and therefore very important to have economic transformation not only in

liberia, in africa but also around the world. i think the global crisis that we all experienced in the last five years showed clearly we're interrelated. something happened in iceland and boomeranged into housing and from the housing to the banking system and some countries are still feeling it. special countries like liberia. the second issue was technology and innovation. if you need to create a new set of economic order, you have to have people who are able to sit and think and say, what are our natural capacities. what do we have in the ground in africa? how do we perform africa itself from within without expecting every day somebody coming from our side to tell this is what we need to do. this is how you define

development. this is how you define science. home grown science, can we have home grown innovations. can we have home grown technology that deal with our issues so we become participant in a global process from an african perspective but not simply sitting there and on the receiving end of issues. the third one was people centered development. the means and end of all development issues should be human being. that includes health. i remember mdgs talking about education, education for all. in many countries in africa, we have had up to 80, 90% achievement on that goal. but the quality of education becomes an issue.

how do we create quality education. not just putting kids in the street -- taking kids out of the street and putting them in the classroom but providing quality education that allows them to be able to prepare themselves for a decent life, get good jobs and be able to live as human beings. and also that the center for development, the perspective, 20 years ago when we were talking about development, it was more like do you -- how many white elephants can you build, big house, big hotels nobody can stay in, highways into the desert. now we're saying development is about simple things. people have clean water. mothers not dying in childbirth.

children not dying after six months of life. children going to school. people not having to work ten months to go to a primary school where there's no teacher or classroom. you have to refocus development on those basic issues, basic health care, basic education and basic needs taking care of transportation. that include also migration. how do you stop people from creating more ghettos and slums in the cities because there's nothing to do in the village. how do you organize, quote, unquote, organize the village so people don't have to rush into the city. number four was environmental stability, natural resource management and disaster and risk management. this is very important for africa, because we -- if you look back into history, maybe back to 400 years ago that

africa has served as a place where things are taken from. human beings, resources, gold, diamonds, slavery, everything else. how do we exchange that process. we can't do it alone. we have to work with other people to do it. and also climate change. we say that africa that an issue with climate change. we're facing the consequences of what is happening, but we have not created the problem we face, although we have part of the solution, part of the solution, we want to be part of the solution, how to mitigate climate change know pretty well that we are not the primary responsible of climate change. that happened before we even got into this part of development.

finance and partnership. sometimes when we talk about africa in terms of development, we think about somebody coming in with a bank book and say if you do that, you do that. we're saying, can we change that model, can we have home grown economies that take care of first all african needs. how do you do that. how do you transform the economy and how do you finance that. as you were saying, taxation, local resources, a lot in africa that have not been tapped maybe because we always looked at outsiders to come with solutions. therefore we pay little attention to our own potentials. that had to change.

that will change -- i give you an example, $50 to $60 billion a year, official development but $3 to $4 billion fly out legally or illegally. i remember three days ago i was listening to npr. the secretary of commerce of the u.s. was talking about how do we start companies from moving headquarters into other countries so they don't pay taxes in the u.s. well, so we have something we both have to fight. how do we measure capital flight people working with resources pay the new taxes so they come up and say oh, we need a tax break for five years. at the end of the five years, they have made enough money to move out to the next country

next door and start the same process. it has been going on in africa for a long time. we have companies that work in liberia, have a tax break for five or six years. at the end of the six years they have enough money to go to sierra leone to say we have new ideas. we can probably do this. how do we stop doing that? also the money from african economies are going to tax havens, don't go to an african company, go to europe, american banks. they go around. how do we create a new partnership where financing, partnership really is partnership not what we have old concept of you are my partner but i decide what you do. i decide what is on the table. i decide what is, you know, visible and not visible. here talking about next week,

two weeks from now african presidents will be talking to the president of the u.s. and i think part of the discussions. these are issues we need to talk about. talk about partnership. not about you deciding as a big brother what is good for your market and what is good for my market at the same time. that means there's no partnership. it's a big brother thing. that mentality has to change. we think it's possible to change. we think africa has changed in terms of governance, in terms of being able to know what the resources are and in terms of the whole global outlook. the economies far from yesterday powerful. russia is not the same russia it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. china is no longer the same china.

clean air is everybody's problem. i think these are the issues. but i give you five but there's a six one that came in at the african summit in june. that is peace and security. before the head of state adopted a document, they said we like what you have, we like what the committee has done, but there's one important aspect of issues in africa that we need to tackle that is peace and security. that if you don't have peace, if you don't have security, whatever you do is thrown out of the window. i give you a good example of sudan, south sudan. everybody was so excited about south sudan being independent, the end of the war in sudan. one of the longest wars of all time in africa. the african development bank went and invested something like $400 million into infrastructure. but now what is left of probably

old cars, burned down, $4 million that went in there has all gone through the window. so without peace, without security you're not going to be able to do anything. our problem with that -- one problem we face, there is a group of people the u.n., nations, peace and security around the world. they shut down peace and security discussion when we're talking about -- when we're talking high-level panel, u.n. policy. no, talk about peace and security, this is part of a security councilman date. therefore, whatever you do, just stay away, talk about city, inner city, talk about other things. but peace and security, no, you cannot use that. in africa we say we are 27% of the u.n., so we'll talk about it. we'll put in our agenda.

what term come up when the political discussions start, that's a different thing. but we don't often see peace in terms of boots on the ground, that you need to have jets flying over to quell the conflict. to send troops to any conflict, you already have thousands and thousands of dead people and mostly young people, women, children, the most vulnerable. the funny thing is, the most conflict, the army always survives but everybody else dies. so we are looking at peace in terms of peace building, putting an end to inequalities. driving something where people

do not have to fight for their rights. most part of the continent, africa has changed in their life. we have three generation of leaders in africa. first we have the founding fathers. they had great ideas including mandela who just died, great ideas for the transformation of the continent, integrating continent economically, militarily and financially but didn't have the means to do it. all of a sudden somehow there was a transition in the 70s, 80s and every day you are new military leaders from some country. that crystallize the idea of africa being in stable insecure and not worthy of investment. that idea went for almost 20 years. now we have a new set of leadership from senegal to south

africa. 90% of leaders are elected, the people not to the west or east as it was in the 1980s. in the 1980s if washington liked you, you could be in power for 50 years. if russia liked you, you could be in power for 50 years. then how you went out. but that has changed. elections took place. good or bad elections are not perfect. they take place. people respond to -- the government not respond to the needs of the people. therefore we have a new africa. i think in that sense africa had changed and capable, able to look at our problems and say these are our issues. these are our problems. but we are not doing that in isolation. we know u.n. process is a global process. you're thinking about 200 and

some countries who have their own interest, giving ourselves developing the common african position, we have those issues. some people talk about economy, south being more important, some talk about how do you deal with -- the region came to us with interest, consumption, climate issues, security. yes, these are all beautiful ideas when we get to you for negotiation, we'll sit and talk about those. for the time being we'll focus on what africa wants to do, where africa wants to go and what world we want to live in 20 years from now. we have some comparative advantages as africans. we sides being 27% of the u.n., africa will be the youngest continent in 20 years. maybe say five out of seven

young persons capable of working age will be living in africa. africa will have tremendous natural resources. africa will be modern. consumers of goods. these are issues we think about and we take seriously and we like to be able to discuss with the rest of the world. so we have copies that we brought. i would like to pass them around and then open up for discussion for the rest of the time. ben and jennifer, thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. dukule. really excellent. i think there will be lots of questions as well. what's interesting to me about this set of pillars is that it opens up a whole new range of players in kind of the

development agenda. i think mdgs were very much focused on government to government and/or philanthropy to government. whereas this one if you talk about instructial transformation it's very much investors, banks, private equity and so forth. if you talk about science and technology, it brings a whole new community. i think science and tech partnerships from the united states and other countries has been, you know, a promising area of growth and expansion whether it's agriculture, health. on a whole range of issues. on the natural resource management, obviously that's a big one. we've been doing work recently on the new energy producers and the big new flows, oil and gas coming out of east africa. how will that get managed.

interesting on the capital flight issue, kofi annan a couple years ago on the african progress panel put out that report, shell, tax havens, tax avoidance at the same time g-8 at the uk summit very much set on setting global standards for transparency or tax enforcement for rules on beneficiary ownership of these various companies. i think this agenda blends very well with that one on the natural resource manage. i'm going to turn to dan to see if he wants to take the first question and then we'll open up, take a couple at a time. i don't think -- we'll not go, i don't think, for the full hour,

but we'll see how the question-and-answer goes. >> thank you. i thought that was very interesting. thank you for your time. i'd be curious about this issue of the role in china, the driver of development. when i was in liberia i asked every public leader i met how they saw china and i got a variety of thoughtful answers and interesting answers, a view of china development as an actor, i'd be curious about that. >> yes. i have my idea about china as driver of development and also my idea about the u.s. driver of development. i have my idea of china being the new kid on the block in terms of development investment in africa. they have a lot of cash. one time i think somebody asked

a president here what do you think about china. she said, well, they promise and usually they deliver. so africa has a lot of needs. there's a downside, of course, we don't want to be dependent -- still the same cycle of dependency you don't want to fall into. you don't want to fall into the china being the factory and africa being the consumer. africa according to natural resources of china, because that's really what's happening. if you go through the market of dakar where 10 years ago you could onbuy handmade things by a woman in the market, they are made in china. a few years back when i was there i saw flags african nation, flag, balloons. i asked the kids, let me see. i looked at it and it was made

in china. i said, why not in ghana. i'm aware of china. i think people are starting to think about, okay, china, you have the money, you have resources, but africa has its own gena and it should not be driven by the interest of china. it should not be driven simply because china has money. easy money is also a problem. >> thank you. [ inaudible ] >> good morning. thank you, dr. dukule. i'm barbara simmons dean at tutman university. one of the things you mentioned was a new africa. we just had our first commencement at which president sur leaf was keynote speaker.

earlier somebody said we were producing a new breed of student. can you talk more about the new breed of africa. >> we build recertainly in developing countries. i'm wondering how does this process working on mdgs work with agenda and african vision for the future of africa and is the process overlapping and how is that working? >> do you have another? >> yeah. new breed of students. i think the emphasis is on the quality of education. tutman university i know, i was there when it was first opened by the president. we talked about it. the fact, for example, tutman

university is now talking about creating science labs, agriculture labs to deal with products that are coming from maryland like rubber -- >> maryland, liberia. >> yes. the social, rubber, palm oil, sugarcane, all producing in liberia, maryland, liberia, how to transform those and change the economy. make sure kids don't say i have to get up and go to monrovia and get a job. i can work in the factory, as a scientist in my own country to do something. that's what we call the new breed of students. i think that's what's big on the president's agenda. also an essential part of the creating a new sort of

education, a new curriculum that is based on africa's needs, based on where africa wants to go and also based on africa's resources. on the question of 2063, 2063 is a long-term vision that is being developed by the au, african union. that is a 50-year plan. it goes hand in hand with the cup, take something from the cup but what it says is essentially that 2063 agenda is african agenda, not something we're negotiating. it's primarily for negotiation, to have our voice into the post 2015 development agenda. the 2063 agenda, long-term vision of where africa wants to be in 50 years, 20 years, 30 years, is purely physically an

african agenda developed by africans for africa. has is not really looking at outsiders and saying what outsiders can do for ourselves. what we can do for ourselves has already started, the way we can do this and come up with a common position after four years of negotiation and discussions is something that points to what one was talking about as long as we have 10,000 different solutions, we'll never have one tangible solution. so we have to have one. africa has come up with one. i think this is the only region in the world with 54 countries agreeing on the same development agenda. i think we can sell it. i think we have enough good insight in the world to be working with us.

>> hello. my name is wendy. i'm with the american red cross. you mentioned disaster risk management is one of the priority pillars for africa. and the network of red cross and red crescent societies in africa, they are very strong with disaster risk reduction and kind of cooperation with communities. that's where the strength lies. these thousands of branches in africa working with families and people. do you feel like disaster risk reduction is being adequately addressed in discussions within the open working group right now? thank you. >> yes. i think, as i said in the beginning, we think that transformation of our development process to economic

transformation, taking care of basic issues cannot address all these issues. i think we try not to -- the mdgs were more focused on social issues. sort of emphasized the social aspect of problems that you will face on the continent. we're trying to move away from that. not that we don't think -- we think social issues are not important, but we think they are linked to bigger problems. they are linked to economic issues, economic exclusion, economic separation between the the rich and poor and all these things. therefore, i think these issues are taken care of. if you look into the document, you can also find it on au.org. we have all of those issues. as goals and as goals and targets in the document.

i think we also said this whole thing is about giving african person his or her place in the world, not just somebody standing on the sideline to watch the train go by. >> watch this event in its entirety at c-span.org. we leave it to take you live to the capital where a briefing is about to get started with senate veterans affairs committee chairman bernie sanders and others on veterans health care service legislation. senator sanders has offered to scale back a senate passed bill to improve health care services for veterans. live coverage on c-span3.

no big secret the congress today is dysfunctional and despite enormous problems we're getting virtually nothing done for the people of our nation. my strong hope has been, and remains, and remains, that on this issue, the need to address the very serious problems facing the veterans of our country and veterans administration, that on at least this issue we can overcome dysfunction and partisanship that has done so much damage to our nation, in the last four years, some 2 million more veterans have come into the v.a. for health care.

primarily because of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in addition the veterans administration is treating an aging veterans population with many folks having serious medical needs. to give you just one small example of the challenges facing the v.a. and this is really quite amazing, some 500,000 men and women have come back from iraq and afghanistan with either ptsd or traumatic brain injury. today over 49,000 veterans are getting outpatient mental health appointments. today, tomorrow, monday, tuesday, wednesday, every day. that's just outpatient mental health appointments. everybody knows that there are unacceptable long waiting time for tens of thousands of waiting

veterans in our country. everybody with common sense knows to accomplish the goal we're striving for, provide quality health care to veterans in a timely manner, the v.a. needs more doctors, nurses, more medical personnel, in many facilities needs more space. now, congress asked the v.a. sloan gibson to assess the needs of the v.a. we said, sloan, you're in there, tell us, what are the needs of the v.a. what he told my committee and as i understand today the house committee. in fact, v.a. needs more doctors, more nurses, more medical personnel and more space so that we do not two years from now in the exact same place we

are today. yesterday 16 major veterans organizations. these are the people who in many ways know the v.a. more than anybody. sixteen major veterans organizations including vfw, disabled american veterans, vietnam veterans, paralyzed veterans of america, the iraq afghanistan veterans of america and many others. they want the exact point. the exact point they made is, yes, emergency contracted care, whatever. we've got to strengthen the v.a. to provide quality care in a timely manner. >> veterans living 40 miles away from a v.a. facility and more should be able to go to a private doctor. but the issue is whether or not

v.a. is going to have space they need. as all of you know legislation passed in the senate, overwhelming vote, bipartisan support with the help of senator mccain, 90-93 vote. that is going to cost $35 billion. at the same time the house of representatives passed their legislation. that legislation was estimated to cost $44 billion. we have been working very hard on this legislation. let me tell you, i have been accused by some of moving the goalposts. well, i guess i have. we have moved the goalpost to a much lower more realistic number. $19 billion less than what the

house passed, $10 billion less than what we passed. exactly what the veterans community says we need to do. i have been working, we all have, with our republican colleagues in the house led by jeff miller, chairman of the house committee on veterans affairs. we have put good faith offers on the table again and again and tried to meet the republicans more than halfway. but i am sad to say that at this point i can only conclude with great reluctance that the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side. just as an example, last night at 10:00 in the evening, the co-chair of the conference committee, mr. miller, announced that there was going to be a

so-called conference committee today. the purpose of the conference committee was to hear his proposal. today just about an hour ago, i received a letter from mr. miller, one-page letter, in which he states, air quote, asking you to join me convening conference committee monday july 28th, 2014, for a formal vote on this proposal, end of quote. in other words, what he is saying is, take it or leave it. now, every sixth-grader in this country understands that the understand congress consists of two bodies called u.s. house of representatives and u.s. senate. every textbook talks about the need for house and senate to come together on legislation. that's the way it has historically been done. it is not somebody saying here is my bill, come to a meeting, vote for my bill, end of

discussion. that is not democracy. that is not negotiation. i say to mr. miller, trust me, i very much will be back in vermont this weekend. believe me, i will. i am prepared to be here this weekend, prepared to be here tomorrow evening to start serious negotiation in terms of how we work out our differences so that, in fact, monday or tuesday, the house and senate can pass serious legislation. let me know who is here. want to go? john? >> thanks, bernie. look, bernie pretty much laid it on the line. i think if we're going to -- access is the big issue in v.a. it's the big issue when the thing blew up in arizona, big issue around the country. if we're going to address access

issue, it will remember v.a. to hire more nurses, doctors. i was not here in 2003 but i will be willing to bet anybody here that they did not talk about offsetting the wars in iraq when they decided to go in and fight that war. taking care of our veterans is a cost of war. we need to do right by them. they have earned these benefits. we need to come together as house and senate, depoliticize this and do what's right for our veterans. the fact is it's going to cost some money. we need to do it. >> i want to thank our chairman. i believe, like all of us do, when it comes to caring for nation's heroes, we cannot accept anything less than excellence. there has been major bipartisan efforts in both the house and senate to move legislation addressing the problems we know are plaguing our men and women in uniform. in fact, as chairman sanders

said, six weeks ago united states senate voted 93-3, 93-3, to pass a bill to reform the v.a. system. there's no reason republicans and democrats, house and senate, can't come together on behalf of our nation's heroes. i'm very disappointed it hasn't happened already. there is still time. right now there's more policy we agree on than we disagree on. i'd like to remind all members of our committee one of the most important things that is agreed upon and that is the commitment that we have made not only as congress but as a nation when we sent these brave men and women to war. our service members have sacrificed so much and we need to make sure our country is there for them when they come home no matter what. no matter what. it's clear there are some good and reasonable ideas on the table right now for how we can get this done. but i'm concerned that the proposal put forward by house republicans this morning is moving us in the wrong

direction. so i hope our republican counter-parts can step back, look at why we are really here and work with us to build on the bipartisan momentum that we saw in this congress just a few weeks ago to truly address some of the immediate accountability and transparency concerns plaguing the v.a. and fix its deep seated structural and cultural challenges. the clock is ticking and our nation's veterans are waiting. >> thank you. the whole premise behind a conference committee, there are co-chairs. the chair from the house side, the chair from the senate side. there is no such thing as one chair co-chair unilaterally saying here is my bill and we're going take a vote on it. that just isn't the way things should happen. every single state has thousands and thousands of veterans who are calling on us to do the right thing. remember, just a few months ago, this whole issue of wait times

and how we have a commitment to support the veterans to the benefits and health care they earned and deserve, that was the big news. we should stay the course. i'm pleased to be a member of the conference committee. every single state. in hawaii the senate bill practically passed unanimously has items that helps our veterans in hawaii to create a new clinic in the community, work with native hawaiian health care corporations so we can expand the capacity for veterans care. there are other items for every single member of both the house and the senate. so we need to get on with the business at hand. that is to keep to the promise we made to our veterans and not fooling around with unilateral take it or leave it propositions. thank you. >> last month the president of the united states nominated a

republican from my state bob mcdonald to be the secretary of the v.a. he was confirmed and passed out of committee yesterday veterans committee, support from people in both parties. he was hired by the president to do what our legislation in the senate does. he was hired by the president to support what the veterans service organizations from the legion of the vfw, dav to paralyzed vets to polish american veterans and every other organization wanted. that is primarily three things, accountability to the v.a. number one. number two, it's to help those veterans that had to take care of those veterans outside the v.a. if they had a wait of 30 days or longer. third, it's to scale up the v.a. that means more doctors, nurses, physical therapists, greater capacity, more expansion of community-based outpatient, expansion of hospitals all over this country. the president of the united states didn't hire bob macdonald, we're not going to

confirm bob macdonald to be president and ceo of a private hospital. the veterans administration, 6 1/2 million veterans got care, 85 million patient visits. if you're getting good care, we need to make sure everybody has access. that's what this legislation will do long-term. that's why it's so important. >> just real quickly, my view is that let hare a typo. the typo is the reference to this proposal. it should be the proposal. the purpose of a conference committee is to confer, have a conference. to say my way or the highway, take it or leave it, is really a disservice not only to congress but veterans. i am actually more saddened than angry that we've come this close

to an agreement and now seem to be veering away from it. i want to thank chairman sanders for his great work, senator murray before hand as chairman of this committee, which has been a bipartisan group seeking common ground. the fact of the matter is, we have so much more in common than in conflict. we have in common a commitment to our veterans both sides of the aisle, both sides of congress. we ought to seize this moment to keep faith with our veterans and make sure we leave no veteran behind. the veterans administration is at a turning point. and time is not on our side. we need to demonstrate that we can be function al if we want the v.a. to overcome its dysfunction.al if we want the v.a. to overcome its

dysfunction. and right now is the opportunity and time to do it. thank you. >> any questions? >> do you have an objection to the plan -- [ inaudible ] >> of course i have an objection to his plan. essentially as you've heard from all of us, and as you know from the veterans organizations, the v.a. today provides good quality health care for those people who get into the system. i can tell you go to vermont, many parts of this country, just the story in today's paper, television, vermont, v.a. saved my life. hear that story all over the united states. the problem that we're having is absolutely outrageous wait periods in various parts of the country. the reason you have those wait periods, we don't have the medical personnel and space to treat veterans. that is one of the issues we have got to deal w of course we have to figure out how we best pay for that.

so again, just made the point. you cannot talk about negotiating. you can't talk about a conference committee when somebody says i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee for a this. who thinks that that's the way congress is supposed to work? yes, ma'am? >> you're criticizing your co-chair, speaker boehner then criticizing you. it seems -- can you explain why you're still hopeful and how you really see a deal coming together? >> i am hopeful that we can come up with an agreement because at the end of the day i do hope and i do believe that every member of the united states congress understands what a terrible thing it would be to turn our back on the needs of men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us and many of whom who today have serious problems and i believe every member of congress who swore an oath to the constitution

understands that, so that is my hope, and i'm prepared to work as hard as i can to make that happen. >> there's only four days before the house and senate -- >> thanks. i am more than aware of that. i think when there's a will, there's a way. there are unanimous consents and ways to move things quickly if there is a desire to do so. >> you say the bill will cost less than $25 billion. can you provide a little more detail on what less means? >> somewhere between 23 and 25. how's that? >> have you called and asked him whether he intended to say take it or leave it? i see it but mr. blumenthal points it might just be the way you're interpreting it. >> i'm asking you to join me in convenesing the conference committee monday june 28th, 2014 for a formal vote on this proposal. by the way, and in the meeting that they had at 12:00, he didn't even have a written proposal. that does not sound to me like

negotiating. my request, again, and i will get on the phone as soon as i'm out of here, is to ask him to sit down with me and with other members, i think congressmother be there. >> it sounds as though there's a philosophical divide. it sounds as though you believe chairman miller is moving toward trying to privatize va. >> i don't want to get into that right now. the answer is -- it's a very simple thing. what i have said, what the veterans organizations have said, what the acting secretary of the va has said, what common sense tells us, va needs more doctors, more nurses, more envelope pers medical person and nor space. they need that and that's what we're fighting for. yes, ma'am. >> have you spoken with your republican colleagues who did attend the meeting this afternoon and what did you have to say to them? >> i have not yet.

this just took place a little while ago. >> representative miller said it's not a take it or leave it proposal, that it's based on the senate bill, the first seven titles of the senate bill are included in his proposal and he said it was just an offer that's out there that talks -- >> if that's the case, good. again, i think any honest reading of what he says is come to a conference committee to vote on this proposal. that sounds to me like a take it or leave it. >> he also said acting secretary gibson and others have mentioned in testimony today and earlier that there are vacancies that they have -- lots of vacancies for doctors and nurses at the va right now and that they can't -- in other words they can't fill those jobs, how could they fill even more? >> you're raising -- and that's why they have got to get going immediately to do it. it is no great secret. what i do worry about, and you raise a good question, is we have a crisis in terms of the numbers of primary care doctors that are out there for the va

and for the private sector. we have a crisis in terms of the number of nurses. that's why these guys have got to get moving on this right away, and to delay it makes a difficult situation even more difficult. john, did you want to jump in? >> i just want to say in regards to that question because it is an important question, the number of docs and nurses we're short. there's also legislation out there to remove caps on loan forgiveness, which could make a big, big difference as far as recruiting docs to the va and that all needs to be included in a comprehensive package that's going to mo of the va in a direction we can be poud of. >> john is exactly right. what we have in our legislation is to give the va the capability, we're providing debt forgiveness to medical school students who want to work for the va and also to fill a residency positions as well. that's one way we can bring more medical people in the va. >> could you describe why they're having so much difficulty?

is it the working conditions considered bad by doctors? is that why they can't recruit? >> i think -- >> the pay? >> the pay is low, but also to be honest with you, we have a crisis -- what i worry about very much is we just don't have enough primary care physicians. there's a estimate we need 50,000 more physicians in the next 20 years, and medical schools are not graduating it. so one of the provisions as john just mentioned we put in here is not to steal primary care physicians from other facilities but to make sure that we go into the medical schools, into the nursing schools, and we offer incentives to get those young people to go into the va. one more question. yes, sir. >> did secretary gibson's recent request for $17 billion in additional funding complicate negotiations at all? >> no. i think what he did is said, look, you asked me to take over the va. you asked me to assess the problems that we have, and i'm trying to be honest with you. i don't want to come back here two years from now in the same position we are right now and i appreciate the acting secretary's honesty. okay. thank you all very much.

>> stars and stripes is reporting today on the dust up between house and senate conferees. story reading congressional negotiations on reforming the va were on the verge of collapse thursday as leaders clashed over spending. senator bernie sanders claimed the other lead negotiator in the effort to hammer out a compromise reform bill, jeff miller of florida, is not working in good faith and pulled a take it or leave it gambit by calling a meeting of lawmakers thursday without consulting sanders. miller and sanders are leading a conference committee that has so far failed to reach an agreement this month on merging bills past in both chambers of congress calling for reforms in the va. again, that from "stars and stripes." according to a story in "the hill" referencing today's meeting held by the conference

committee co-chair, jeff miller, said most democrats boycotted the meeting where miller proposed $10 million in emergency funding. this attempt to characterize this as a unilateral move, whatever, miller told reporters after the meeting attended by 14 gop lawmakers and one house democrat. coming up at -- >> thanks for being here. we have a hearing that's exactly going on right now in the house. some of our members will be shuttling in and out. i appreciate the opportunity to get together and the purpose of this is not to make five-minute speeches. the purpose is this for us to present an offer to the -- to senator sanders. i'm sorry that he's unable to be here today, but i certainly understand his reasons.

without question, i think everybody here will agree that our intent has been from the very beginning and continues to be finish our conference committee work, get something to both bodies so they can vote on it and to the president and have us obviously make our votes before we leave and the house leaves next thursday, one week from today. so everybody in here knows that we have continued to make good faith efforts. we have made movement in the process. there's been a lot of give and take from both sides. senator sanders and i continue to communicate on this issue, and we will continue to communicate on this issue, and what i wanted to do was to try to bring everybody together and

say, here's what we think in the house that we, in fact, can submit, and we don't have total buy-in from the folks on the democrats side, so i don't want to insinuate that we do, but they're aware of what our offer is going to be. i saw a statement a few minutes ago that i was criticized for saying that the senator had moved the goalposts. well, the facts are he did. he requested from va additional dollars, and we got a $17.6 billion add in the middle of these negotiations. when i asked for the senate -- for your ed ifification, when i asked for additional backup material for the $17.6 billion, what i got was two sheets of paper, and i told the secretary today that that was not

adequate. but we are, again, pledged to continue to work. i think it's important. i thought it was important since we had not gotten together publicly in four weeks. senator sanders and i serve as co-chairs of this conference out of a desire to show bipartisan, tried to do this yesterday, and the senator said he didn't want do it yesterday, and we said how about today, and he didn't like today either, but here is what our offer is so that everybody understands where we're coming from. we're prepared to accept title one through title seven of the original senate bill with a small change to include all 27 leases. the senate only had 26. we're saying add the 27th lease into that which is what passed

the house last december. provide va with $102 million for the rest of fiscal year 2014 to dress some of the department's internal funding shortfalls and some of those shortfalls are nonva care, emergency space leasing, and improvements to rating fiduciary and appeals work and how we'll fund it is $10 billion in no-year emergency mandatory funding to cover the cost of the senate's choice provisions, and this is what cbo scored the bill at was $10 billion. i think this provides a more than solid down payment on the first year of this two-year program, and the remaining senate provisions would be subject to appropriations. some of which are efforts to address staffing shortages, authorization of 27 major

medical facility leases, the commissions to studies va access to care and construction issues, improve the training of facility managers, collaboration with other federal health services, and traement treatment for military sexual trauma. it's basically the senate bill except it's not all mandatory funding, and what we've said is we would move to the $10 billion, make that emergency mandatory funding with no-year limit so we can carry it over because i think most of us expect that we, in fact, will not spend $10 billion in the choice portion next year because i think this is the critical piece of this legislation, and senator mccain, thank you for working so hard to get this particular piece in this

conference. both of us, both houses think that that's critical to helping va improve the delivery of timely health care. it's a very simple, very simple straightforward offer, and with that i would yield to the ranking member on the senate va committee, mr. burr. >> well, thank you, chairman miller, and let me say to the conferees who are here, when we started this process, every member believed we should focus on the crisis at hand, that the scope of the conference was to address those things that we saw as deficiencies at the va. i think for the most part we have stayed within the parameters, and i think that the response from veterans around the country is this will help us. the chairman raises an important issue, and that's that the va in the midst of this popped up and said, hey, we have some other needs.

here is financially what they are, and those needs were broken down by 2014, '15, '16, and '17. we either have to trust our appropriations process to address out years or do away with them. and the reality is for the scope of this conference, i think it is well within the scope of this conference to address what va says they need in 2014. the chairman has included that in the offer. it's $102 million, and i might say of that, 60-some million dollars is in the vba. it's not in the health care needs. when we talk about the additional whether it's $13 billion or $16 billion, let me just suggest to you, i'm not in any way objecting that the va is wrong. i think there's a burden of proof that both sides of the hill and both parties have asked, show us the information that proves how this is going to be used. we have yet to receive that, but

that's probably more appropriate more us to look at in the context of an protiappropriatio process where the request comes from the white house and the request doesn't just come from an agency. to those voss around the country, we agree with you, we're willing to look at what additional needs our veterans have, but we want to do it in the normal context. we will address those things that have been identified as in this year's fiscal year that cannot be addressed in the normal appropriations budget. so i thank the chairman for moving forward. i believe i said as i came in the home, i'm still optimistic we can get a deal. that might seem a little odd considering my counterpart in the senate is not here or his colleagues, but i still believe we can get there. we will never get there if we're not willing to, as a conference, entertain a proposal and

eventually have a vote. so i thank you for moving it forward, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i also want to let you know that there's media reports out there right now that say the va talks on the verge of collapse are wildly exaggerated. we continue to try to resolve the impasse albeit not a great one in comparison to where we started, but we are getting closer. senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you and senator burr and all members here on both sides of the capitol for the hard work that's been done on this issue and the priority that all of us have given this situation. i don't have to describe the urgency which is associated with this issue. i did have a conversation with the chairman of the veterans affairs committee.

i strongly recommend that as soon as possible that the four, you two and the ranking member and the chair, sit down again this afternoon. i believe that the only way we are going to reach a conclusion, if we are, and i believe we must, it's not a matter of can, it's must, then it's going to require a dialogue. i believe that he will understand that there are certain compromises that have to be made as some have already been made and perhaps more, but i would hope that the -- that this afternoon that the four of you could sit down and start some really tough negotiating because we all know that's the only way we're going to reach a conclusion, and especially mild-mannered people like myself who are very supportive of that effort. i thank you for all the great

work you all have done and every member. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. let me assure you that the many meetings and telephone calls i have had with your colleague, mr. sanders, has been in an attempt to try to negotiate something that both bodies could support, be proud of, and certainly that would speed access to care to the veterans, and -- >> i can't speak for him, mr. chairman, but i do -- >> you can watch this meeting in its entirety at cspan.org. we leave it now to go live back to the capitol where a bipartisan group of senators are holding a briefing on the situation in gaza. this is lindsey graham. >> -- and our friends in israel, so we will be unveiling a resolution that i think is an important statement and an important time. everybody would like the violence to stop, but we want the violence to end forever, and our belief is that there's no

moral equivalency between what's happening between hamas and israel. hamas is doing everything it can to put its civilians at risk hoping that israel will attack a target and civilian casualties will ensue for political purposes and they're doing everything they can to kill israeli children. the best way to protect palestinian children is to stop trying to kill israeli children. at the end of the day a cease-fire that leaves hamas in place is dooming everybody into the palestinian world who lives under the hamas yoke and puts israel at risk. we're calling on a cease-fire that gets to the heart of the problem, and i believe the heart of the problem is hamas wants to destroy israel, and there's no amount of negotiating ever going to get that out of their system. so we hope that a cease-fire would be done upon conditions not to repeat the mistakes of the past, that a cease-fire will be done in such a fashion as

israel can deal with the tunnel threat, which is new and lethal, effectively and permanently, that they can deal with the rocket sites that are being positioned by hospitals, schools, and apartment complexes, that when the cease-fire is done israel will have had an opportunity through diplomacy or military action to deal with the threat that faces the israeli people and, finally, when a cease-fire is done we hope the palestinian people will have a chance to live in piecea and that means hamas has to go as a governing entity. there's nowhere to get there from here if you leave hamas in place. they rearm, they attack again because the one thing they want is the one thing we're not going to give them, the destruction of the state of israel. with that i will turn it over to senator schumer. >> thank you, and let me thank you, lindsey, my partner in so many different issues, and all of our colleagues here today.

we all mourn the loss of innocent life on the israeli and gaza side of the border. there is one word that describes the reason. there is one word that explains the reason that there is such a loss of innocent life, hamas. if hamas had agreed to cease fire, which egypt, a muslim arab country proposed, there wouldn't be such a loss of life, but hamas doesn't want to do that, and when the last time they agreed to a cease-fire, it lasted about five hours, hamas then continued to launch rock s rockets, so the cease-fire was virtually useless. the only way to have a cease-fire that's going to have a difference is to make sure that hamas no longer has the capability of launching rockets into israel or sending killers through tunnels into israel. and so you need a cease-fire

that's going to work and be permanent and long term, and that cease fire should occur only after hamas is denuded of the missiles and only after the tunnels are no longer useful. it amazes me, and typical of hamas, they got a limited amount of concrete into gaza. they said they needed to construct schools and homes and what did they use it for? tunnels. all these tunnels are lined with concrete in an effort to kill israeli civilians along the gaza border. many of us are just frustrated with the double standard. we see it on the news. we see it among the commentators. we see it along average folks, too, sometimes, which is, oh, beth sides are equally to gym. that is just not true.

hamas doesn't recognize israel's right to exist. hamas has sworn to the destruction of israeli citizens and as prime minister netanyahu said aptly, israel uses missiles to shield and protect its people. hamas uses people to protect its missiles. >> thank you. let's just call hamas, we know it's a terrorist organization, and what we see happening at this point, there is no moral equivalency between what israel is doing to defend itself and its people and what hamas is doing often using the civilian population in palestine as shields, and that's the mark of terrorism. so israel has to have the right to defend itself and to address the means that these terrorists have, not only the tunnels, but we've seen instances where they

have actually put in a u.n. school missiles that they have directed towards israel and the israeli people. so this cease fire -- a cease-fire for the sake of a cease-fire that leaves the means in terrorists' hands to continue to terrorize the israeli people, to terror size in many instances the palestinians by using civilians for shields, that is not a true cease fire that will lead to peace, and so we need to make sure that hamas no longer has the means to be able to terrorize not only the israeli people, which it has done, to lob rockets toward israel but also the palestinian people as they're used as shields and really used completely by hamas for their means to try to terrorize israel. >> first, let me thank my colleagues for being here. this is clearly a nonpartisan

support for what is right, what is fair. last thursday i was proud of the united states senate. we passed unanimously a relution that recognized israel's right to defend itself, it recognized that the violence is being caused by hamas, a terrorist group. it recognized that hamas cannot be part of the governing strk tour of the palestinian authority. that was passed unanimously last thursday. since that time senator schumer pointed out the egyptians have brought forward a cease-fire. israel was prepared to move forward on it. hamas said so. we had a short time out for h humanitarian aid. the world now know it's that ha h hamas has embedded its missiles in hospitals and schools. that is known. it's now clear to everyone what

hamas' strategy is all about. we all want to see peace between israel and the palestinians. we want to see that. that is our -- that has been our dream, that's been our goal, but it's also clear to us that a cease-fire cannot occur until israel is protected against the missiles entering their country aimed at innocent civilian populations, and it can't end until these tunnels are brought to an end. these are not the tunnels that were on the egyptian border that were used to bring missiles into the gaza. these are tunnels being used to terrorize the israelis, to try to capture israelis for kidnapping purposes and trying to terrorize a country. that also needs to end. our message is pretty clear. we want to see a cease-fire, we want to see peace, but the missiles from hamas must end, the tunnels must also end.

>> i just want to echo the comments made by my colleagues and just add i think this is the most systematic use of human shields in modern history. there's a video of leaders of hamas going on television in gaza telling people to go to the rooftops and stand up against israel, that that was an effective means of resisting. meanwhile, they're hiding in bunkers. some of the command centers are underneath hospitals. i think what's even more outrage ous is not just the reaction of hamas but some in the international community. the human rights council yesterday condemned israel and calling for an information. a 700-word report with not a mention of hamas, a brief mention of ha mats. we have never seen in the modern history of the world any orths use human shields the way hamas is using human shields in gaza. it is an outrage. that's what the international

community should be done r condemning. to leave these people in a position of power means we will have another conflict and another one. as long as hamas is in gaza, there will be no peace in this region unfortunately. >> well, i think that at a time of partisan differences, this moment is a rare and profoundly important time for us to come together and express our nation's moral revulsion. it's more than just a political sentiment, more than just a sense of what is tactically right, but a moment of deep moral revulsion. that's the sense of outrage that our entire world community should have at this moment when children are used as human shields. that is a systematic practice

that's unprecedented in the annuals of war. it is the essence of terrorism to destroy innocent lives. that's why. rouses terror and that's what hamas is doing here. so a cease-fire will end this conflict for the moment, but it will not absolve hamas of the moral responsibility and rep rehengs for these desperate despicable tactics. >> yes ness? >> do you believe israel went too far today in shooting at the school where the refugees were held? >> no. i don't believe israel's gone too far at all. just put yourself in israel's shoes. how far would we go? what would we do if we were attacked by a neighboring country, missiles coming into

our country, tunnels dug under our borders, people pop up in cities in the united states to kidnap and kill the citizens and the enemy we're facing uses civilian -- used holy sites, used schools. the press report, one of the u.n. schools, they found rockets in the school and the u.n. gave them back to hamas. that was pretty sum, so, no, i don't find israel going too far. there is no moral equivalency. the rebels are tlhuggish, they'e brutes. these guys are boy scouts compared to hamas. >> i don't know of any country that's gone to such extremes to try to correct the civilian op sation. everything they have done is to get innocent people out of harm's way with the obligation that israel has to protect its

own citizens from missiles coming into the population center. i give israel a great deal of credit for the manner in which they have tried to warn palestinians and obviously they're faced with an unprecedented situation when you have the missiles and control centers embedded into civilian facilities such as schools and hospitals and mosques. >> and i'd just say, first, the loss of life at the school is so the regrettable but the blame falls on hamas' shoulders because they have repeatedly used civilian sites, including schools, to hide missiles. hamas is the group that urged palestinians not to flee. why? the only logical answer is they wanted them killed so they could use them in their propaganda war. and so we regret the loss of life. it's horrible.

the reason it's happening is hamas. that's the problem here. hamas using people as shields, shooting missiles at israel. storing those missiles at schools, holy sites, and civilian areas. >> there's one other -- i think all of us have visited israel and some of us together, and we've talked to the israeli leaders about not only this latest situation but about others that they faced which perhaps with fewer extremes have involved the same tactics on the part of hamas. i can tell you having seen their faces, listened to their voices, the leaders of israel, share the pain and grief, and they go to every possible length with great emotion, not just intellect but deep and sincere emotion to avoid these kinds of casualties. so, you know, none of this is

done likely. it is survival. israel is fighting for survival, and as senator graham said so well, if the united states or any other country faced the onslaught, the attack, the aggression and sought to defend itself as carefully with such calibration as israel has done, they will be praised. >> thank you, all. on the senate floor today, members are working on a bill

that would give tax breaks to employers who return jobs to the u.s. while eliminating deductions for expenses incurred from moving jobs overseas. members voted to proceed to that bill a short time ago. the house this week working on several bills dealing with federal student aid, including one today that would require recipients to receive periodic financial counseling. at 3:40 this afternoon in both chambers, members will observe a moment of silence in tribute to u.s. capitol police officers jacob chestnut and detective russell gibson who were shot and killed at the u.s. capitol on this date 16 years ago. as always, watch the house live on c-span, the senate is live on c-span2. 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits

1974. this weekend the house judiciary committee as it continues impeachment and the charge of abuse of power. >> what you have here are questions about sort of what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate waltergate committee were impeachable, and, thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon nknw about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later sunday night at 8:00 pern on american history tv on c-span3. former congressman barney frank, who co-authored the dodd/frank financial regulations law testified wednesday about the impacts of the law. he served as chair of the house financial services committee from 2007 to 2011. joining the former congressman during this hearing were several

banking and financial industry representatives. the committee will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. this hearing occurs two days after the fourth anniversary of the dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. today we will examine its impact on our capital markets and the american economy and our citizens more generally. i now recognize myself for 4 1/2 minutes for an opening statement. dodd/frank has always been based upon a false premise that somehow deregulation or lack of regulation led us into the

crisis. however, in the decade leading up to the crisis, studies have shown that the regulatory burden on the financial services industry actually increased. there were few industries that were more highly regulated. sarbanes/oxley, the list goes on. we hear a lot about wall street greed. i could not agree more. i'm just curious at what point was there not greed on wall street, so i'm wondering how that could necessarily be the determining factor. what i do know is that affordable housing goals, fannie and freddie on steroids, and other policies helped incent, cajole, mandate financial institutions into loaning money into people to buy homes that ultimately could not accord to keep them. my democratic colleagues at the

time said let's roll the dice on housing. they did, and the economy imploded. it wasn't deregulation, it was bad regulation that helped lead us into this crisis. so if you get the wrong diagnosis, you get the wrong remedy. dodd/frank has been the wrong remedy adding incomprehensible complex to incomprehensible complexity. frequently in washington, i say frequently, regrettably it is the rule as opposed to the exception, laws are always evaluated by their advertised benefits, not by their actual benefits or actual cost. so at the time dodd/frank was passed, we were told it would, quote, lift the economy, quote, end too big to fail, quote, end bailouts, increase financial stability and increase

investment and entrepreneurship and instead what have we learned? it is now official that we are now the slowest, weakest recovery in the history of the nation. tens of millions of our countrymen now unemployed or underemployed. meg tiff economic growth in the last quarter. business startups at a 20-year low. 1 out of 7 dependent upon food stamps. increasing entrepreneurship? i don't think so. ending too big to fail? >> we've had this debate before. dodd/frank codified too big to fail into law, and it is now demonstrable four years later that the big things have gotten bigger and the small bankses have gotten fewer. financial stability is a debatable proposition. financial stability is now designed by the unelected and

unaccountable bureaucrats. i don't know with the increased concentration though in our larger financial institutions whether one can say we've achieved financial stability. but what i do know is it comes at an incredible cost. thanks to dodd/frank, it is now harder for low and moderate income americans to buy a home. again, thanks to dodd/frank, there are fewer community banks serving the needs of small businesses and families. thanks to dodd/frank, main straight businesses and farmers faced higher cost in managing their risk and producing their projects, which is impacting every single american at their kitchen table. thanks to dodd/frank's volker rule or capital markets are less liquid than before.

thanks to dodd/frank services that bank customers once took for granted like free checking are being curtailed or eliminated. it is one of the reasons that the house financial services committee has moved numerous regulatory relief bills, a number of which have actually passed with bipartisan support, none of which i recall being taken up by the democratic senate. by the time this congress is over, the house financial services committee would have addressed dodd/frank's greatest sin of omission, housing finance reform, and working alongside our friends at the judiciary committee who are developing a bankruptcy alternative to the orderly -- we will have addressed dodd/frank's greatest sin of codifying too big to fail. i neld to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to welcome all of

today's witnesses and i, too, want to acknowledge and welcome the form eer chairman and long time veteran of this committee, mr. barney frank. [ applause ] and i'm so pleased that he has agreed to be the democratic witness today. barney, i have had your portrait hanging over me for just about a year now, and during that time i have concluded that just seeing barney frank without hearing him is no barney frank at all. i'm pleased we all will be able to hear you today, and i hope to hear you remind my republican colleagues about just how close to the brink we came in 2008 and about why congress and the president responded forcefully with your namesake legislation, the dodd/frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. i'm hoping you will recount the

incalculable widespread human suffering inflicted on millions of americans, suffering that still continues to this day, how years of deregulation, lax enforcement, and zero accountability for the nationals financial institutions destroyed more than $13 trillion in economic growth, $16 trillion in household wealth, and led to millions of foreclosures and devastating unemployment. in the aftermath, democrats and some senate republicans passed do dodd/frank which provided oversight to wall street, gave regulators tools to end too big to fail, and eliminated loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go unnoticed and unregulated. and most importantly, it rest e restored responsibility and accountability to our financial system giving americans confidence in a system that works for and protects them. chairman frank, i'm proud to

have worked so closely with you on this important legislation, and i'm even more proud of the law's remarkable progress in just four short years. the consumer financial protection bureau is up and running. already returning $4.6 billion to 15 million consumers who have been subjected to unfair and deceptive practices. the volcker rule has been finalized which is forcing banks to limit the practice of trading to make money for themselves and refocusing them on making investments in the real economy. shareholders of the u.s. corporations now have a say on pay and can better hold executives accountable by voting down excessive compensation or golden parachutes and thanks to longer authorities given to the securities and exchange commission, one of wall street's top cops, more than $9.3 billion in civil penalties has been

recovered from bad actors since 2011. but before these accomplishments were evident, in fact, before the ink on president obama's signature was dry, republicans immersed themselves into an aggressive, unrelenting campaign to repeal, weaken, and pressure regulators to return us to the time before the crisis. they incorrectly blame the financial crisis on government efforts to house the poor and disadvantaged. despite the fact that private mortgage securitizations built on predatory mortgage loans started the crisis. derivatives exacerbated it and poor corporate governance and risk management allude it to flourish. and they misunderstand the cure. republicans have pushed proposal to cut, regulate, and subject their rulemaking to constant implementation hurdles and court challenges. democrats have tirelessly fought

gop efforts to render dodd/frank toothless or risk returning the financial services industry to the opacity, risk, and deregulation that causeded crisis. they make hyperbolic claims about the effects of regulation. these assertions are as old as time. indeed, the 15isame salvos can heard from opponents of the 1933 act. and though they are the loudest critics, republicans have never offered an alternative. no alternative to protect consumers, no way to wind down large complex banks, and no capacity to pass reformed to fannie mae and freddie mac. i continue waiting for my republican colleagues to acknowledge as mr. greenspan has that they have found a flaw in free market ideology. mr. chairman, the four-year anniversary of the dodd/frank act is an important milestone.

we should look back and assess how far we've come and where we need to go, and today i for one look forward to correcting the record and getting some facts straight about this historic law and its contributions to the renewed vibrancy of our nation. i welcome the witnesses' testimony and i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes the gentle lady from west virginia for a minute and a half. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome back, former mr. chairman. this past monday marked the fourth year anniversary of the passage of dodd/frank. . 400 new rules of which 298 have been finalized and still 24% are yet proposed. i think we see now this legislation is having a real detrimental impact on our main street businesses. as many of you know for the past three years i have had numer owe us hearings in the financial

institutions and consumer credit subcommittee highlighting the challenges facing community lenders and small businesses. one of my fears during the drafting, that it would limit the ability of community lenders to tailor their products to their clients' needs. late they are morning i will shareself accounts from west virginia lender of case where is they no longer are able to provide clients to meet their circumstances and challenges. these cases bring to light one of the central flaws of dodd/frank which is the premise that lending decisions are best determined by washington bureaucrats rather than local lenders. leaders -- lenders need flexibility to tailor their products. unfortunately, the consequences of dodd/frank are not limited to access to credit. life insurance policy holders could potentially see increases in premiums if life insurers are forced to capital levels designed for lending

institutions. i will continue to work with the chairman both hensarling and nothing bauer . >> the chair recognizes miss maloney for a minute and a half, ranking member of the capitol market subcommittee. >> thank you, chairman and ranking member. welcome to chairman frank. we miss you, it's great to see you. this legislation bears your name and was the most sweeping overhaul of our financial regulation since the great depression. history shows that financial reform is a work in progress and will improve and solidify with time. when the investment company act of 1940 was passed, it was called at the time, and i quote, the most intrusive financial legislation known to man or beast, end quote. that same intrusive financial legislation is now the cornerstone of the large and thriving u.s. mutual fund industry. it is also important to remember

that even the post-depression financial reforms took a very long time to implement. while the securities act of '33 was a landmark reform of our securities markets, the s.e.c. didn't adopt the '33 act's main anti-fraud rule, rule 10b5 until 1948, over 15 years after the 33 act was passed. in sum, financial reform done properly takes time. it requires flexibility on the part of regulators, the industry, and congress. so i look forward to our witnesses today and will respond by saying when president obama entered the office, we were shedding 700,000 jobs a month, we've had 52 months of private sector job growth. last month over 288,000, resulted in the dow being the highest ever, 17,000. we're moving in the right direction. financial reform is a part of our financial growth and stability. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from texas, mr. naug bauer for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the dodd/frank act was the most far reaching financial reform legislation sips the great depression. to put it in perspective, if you took the securities and exchange act of 1933, the security exchange act of '34, and sarbanes/oxley and every amendment you tacked on since then, you'd still need 600 pages to have the same amount of pages as the dodd/frank act. just in the first 225 rules, 24 million man hours per year required to comply with it. what does this mean? it means we have institutions now that are hiring more compliance officers than loan officers and it's beginning to hurt small businesses all across the country. the sba recently just said that the microloans have declined every year since the passage of

dodd/frank. it's declined over $170 billion to 2008 -- from $170 billion to $138 billion. recently we had a loan banker say he's hiring more compliance officers than loan officers. >> time of the gentleman is expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, for a minute and a half. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today, but i want to especially say that it's with great pleasure that i welcome back chairman frank. very few individuals that served on this committee will experience the great honor of having their picture hung on the walls of this hearing room. this honor speaks volumes to the great influence and impact mr. chairman of your leadership had within these walls and by extension to our financial services industry and our great country. many have forgotten how far we have come. you led when the country needed

strong leadership, when our most prized financial institutions were collapsing, and when average americans were helplessly losing their jobs and retirement funds. four years later, mr. chairman, we can proudly say we have made great progress not only in restoring confidence in our financial markets, but also in safeguarding and preventing the excessive risky behaviors of the past. four years later, mr. chairman, more americans are returning to work. confidence and trust has returned to our financial institutions and markets, and our banks and credit unions are starting to lend again but they're doing it more carefully this time. while there is no bill that is a perfect bill, dodd frank has given us the foundation of which to build upon to make sure there's strength, transparency in our markets and americans can continue to live the american dream. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, vice chair of the financial institutions subcommittee, for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, witnesses for being here today. it was widely believed the financial crisis resulted from a lack of regulation but today the regulations that resulted from the 400 new mandates included in dodd/frank do not provide any more security to our financial markets. all they do is provide less choice for consumers and in some cases expose them to more dangers. in fact, the dodd/frank act was supposedly created to end too big to fail. but all it's done is make it harder for small community banks and credit unions to serve the american people. take for instance the consumer financial protection bureau. protecting consumers is a noble goal and a mission that i support, but you don't protect consumers by taking away or limiting products like the cf pb does through the qualified mortgage rule, limiting credit options, or claiming disparate impact based on numbers that don't exist. additional dangers they are exposed consumers to through their data collection is absolutely unacceptable. the dodd/frank act has not made

the american consumer safer, and it has failed to end too big to fail. as we celebrate the dodd/frank birthday, i think the american people realize there's not much to celebrate. i yield back. >> time of the gentleman is expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, welcome the panel and especially our former chairman and my friend barney frank. it's a real pleasure to have you back here. i want to make an observation about the 80-page reflection that the majority produced on dodd/frank. i read it closely and carefully and what is most interesting to me about that, and this opportunity on the fourth year an verse of the passage of dodd/frank, what's most interesting is the dog that didn't bark. it has for four years, of course, been the practice of the other side to abide by the idea that if you don't have something nasty to say, say nothing at all. and the 80 pages on this fourth anniversary are related exclusively to title one and

title two, two titles of a 16 title bill. the reflection in the 80 pages makes no mention of the billions of dollars that have been returned to some pretty badly abused consumers. no mention of the fact that the cfpb is stopping the selling of toxic mortgages to american families. no mention of the first meaningful regulation of the massive derivatives market, a market which was at the very center of the meltdown of 2008 and, of course, there is no mention in either that 80 pages or any of the opening statements from my friends on the other side about the fact that the financial markets today are thriving, in many cases as they never have before, and as we all know, the banks are remarkably profitable. these are facts that completely belie the predictions of chaos and catastrophe we have heard for four years from the other side. instead, and this is a compliment to my friends on the other side, they do focus on the fascinating question of too big to fail where, of course, the

reality is none of us know whether we have put in place the tools to address the failure of a systemically important institution. sheila bair thinks we have. tim geithner thinks perhaps we haven't. this is a terribly important question and one that is worthy of good, strong, bipartisan consideration and debate and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutsman, for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and for calling this hearing and thank you witnesses for taking the time to speak with us today. as we will hear today, dodd/frank has failed to end bailouts and failed to lift the economy as the president promised. in practically every way dodd/frank puts regulators ahead of taxpayers and consumers. still no one believes the economy has been made safe from future bubbles or bailouts. what the lenders in front of us

>> we'll now turn to our witnesses, each of whom i will introduce briefly. first we welcome mr. del wilson, chairman, president, and ceo of the first state bank of san diego, texas. next we welcome mr. anthony carfang, a partner at treasury strategies, a firm that counsels businesses on treasury management strategies.

it is now with a very -- with a lot of sincerity that i welcome back chairman frank. i haven't had an opportunity to shake your hand and greet you personally. we will remedy that situation after the hearing. selfishly, i welcome the chairman back for two reasons. number one, i want to bet that the ranking member would call him as the democrat witness to defend his law, and it is always good to win a bet. and i have a vested interest in ensuring that former chairman are well treated by this committee. i intend to be one one day, but to the chagrin of my democratic colleagues i'm not planning for that to be one day soon. next, we welcome mr. thomas deas, vice president and treasurer of the fmc korms in philadelphia. his testimony today is on behalf of the coalition for derivatives and users. last but not least, mr. paul

kupiak is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute who has previously held a variety of positions with the fdic, other fdic, other public sector and private sector institutions. each of your written statements will be made a part of the record after your oral remarks. for those who have not testifies there, and i'm somewhat uncertain whether chairman frank has ever testified from theitable, but i know he knows the system. the green, yellow, red lighting system. green means go, yellow means wrap it up, red means stop. and we have not improved the audio system since chairman frank's day so you'll need to take the microphone and bring it very, very close to your mouth so that all can hear you. mr. wilson, you are now recognized for a summary of your testimony. >> thank you, chairman

hensarling -- >> regrettably, that is not close enough. pull it a little close eplease. >> my name is dale wilson. i'm the ceo of first state bank of san diego, a rural community bank serving a small south texas town. i appreciate the opportunity to be here to present the views of the texas bankers association on the impact of dodd/frank act. let me start by thanking my own congressman ruben hinojosa who serves on this committee. we had the pleasure of hosting hum at my bank in south texas, and we appreciate his service to our community. during the last decade, the regulatory burden for community banks has multiplied tenfold. dodd/frank alone has already added nearly 14,000 pages of proposed and final regulations.

managing this tsunami of regulation is a significant challenge for a bank of any size but for a small bank with only 17 employees, it's overwhelming. today it is not unusual to hear from bankers ready to sell to larger banks because of the regulatory burden has become too much to manage. since the passage of dodd/frank, there are 80 fewer texas banks. these banks did not fail. texas has one of the healthiest economies in the country. we call it the texas miracle. these were community bankers, and i've talked to some of them personally. they could not maintain profitability with regulatory cost increasing between 50 and 200%. these are good banks that for decades have been contributing to the economic growth and vitality of their towns but

whose ability to serve their communities is being undermined by excessive regulation and government micromanagement. the real costs of the increased regulatory burden are being felt by smalltown borrowers and businesses that no longer have access to credit. when a small town loses its only bank it loses its life blood. it's more difficult to improve schools, health care facilities and other infrastructure projects. i know it was not the intent of congress when it passed dodd/frank to harm community banked, but that is the awful reality. one issue in particular that's hi hinderred us is the qualified mortgage rules. as a result of the qualified mortgage rules, our bank no longer makes mortgages as the

costs and the risks are just too high. make no mistake. the true cost is felt by my community. i used to make mortgage loans that averaged $50,000 and i made them to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for secondary market loans. i'm not the only bank in south texes too exit the mortgage business. other banks have stopped as well as community banks in adjacent counties. this is occurring in texas and across the country. the real victims here are the working class and middle class prospective homeowners. banks want to make safe profitable mortgage loans. denying mortgage loans to borrowers, otherwise considered credit worthy goes against every sound business instinct a banker

has. accordingly, we support hr-2673 and hr-4521. these bills would exempt any mortgage held on a bank's balance sheet from the ability to repay requirements and exempt loans held by small contractors with less than $10 billion in assets from the escrow requirements imposed by the dodd/frank act. no bank is going to hold a loan it doesn't believe the borrower has the ability to repay. i ask this committee to look at the unintended consequences of the dodd/frank act and to make changes so that community banks can go back to what they've always been good at, meeting the credit needs of local individuals and small businesses. unless major changes are made, compliance costs will continue to drive massive consolidation

within our industry and limit the ability of our nation's community banks to drive main street growth across the country. thank you very much. >> mr. carfang, you are recognized for your testimony. >> morning chairman hensarling, ranking member waters. i'm pleased to be here. >> if you could pull the microphone even closer. >> my name is tony carfang with treasury strategies. we're a consummiting firm that consults businesses and financial institutions including health care organizations, higher ed and municipalities. we've been doing this for about 30 years. we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. first of all, we'd like to let the committee know we fully support any activity to improve the safety and soundness of the u.s. financial system and we support the objectives of the dodd/frank regulation. unfortunately as we sit here four years later and we're only beginning to see some of the impact of that regulation, the

verdict is not good. the regulation has created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt. the delayed implementation is creating tremendous uncertainty on the part of america's businesses and financial institutions. the ambiguities in the regulation, the inconsistencies, yet some of the vague language, things like know your customer, systemically important, whatever the lack definition are creating tremendous uncertainty that is a drag on the economy. let's point out two things at a conceptual level. one is institutions are mandated to fund themselves with longer liabilities which are -- yes, they are more stable yet at the same time investment managers are being mandated to invest in shorter term instrumtss because they can be turned over more quickly and are less risky. but you can't do both. similar inconsistencies in terms of too big to fail, yes, we

think that organizations should not be too big to fail but by designating them as systemically important you are telling the depositor, put your money in there. they are too big to fail. so here we are four years later only beginning to see some of the impacts. what's the verdict? let's list through the items in the preamble of the act and see how we've done. first is, we want to improve the safety and soundness of the u.s. financial system. the u.s. capital markets are, by far, the most robust and deepest markets in the world. before dodd/frank, u.s. companies operated with cash on their balance sheets equal to 9% of u.s. gross domesting product. that's an example of efficiency. the european number is 21%. now that we're beginning to see the beginning impacts emerge, that 9% has grown to 12%. we're clearly moving in the wrong direction, hundreds of billions of dollars have been simply sidelined on u.s. balance

sheets as a precaution against the uncertainty of the regulation. if we were to reach the 21% level of the european capital markets, that would sideline an extra $1 trillion. on that objective of dodd/frank, we miss. transparency. yes, there are certain banking activities that are now more transparent and they come under the microscope. the important thing and the real issue is risk. the risk of the banks that's is key. risk can neither be created nor destroyed. by taking them off of the -- and away from the visibility of a bank's balance sheet, we are, in fact, making the risk less transparent, more difficult to manage. so on that point we fail as well. too big to fail. i alluded to this earlier. before the passage or since the passage of dodd/frank, u.s. gdp,

even including inflation is up 14%. bank assets up 25%. the banks are getting bigger. eliminate bank bailouts. taxpayer bailouts is one of the objectives. i point to the balance sheet of the federal reserve bank which has grown from $1 trillion to $4.3 trillion since the enactment of dodd/frank. this is a huge concentration of risk which, by the way, is invested in longer term assets, unlike what led the rest of the advice of the bill includes. and is funded by overnight bank reserves. what we have here is the next taxpayer bailout in the making. finally, dodd/frank wants to eliminate a piece of practices. we're eliminating a lot of practices. in terms of mortgages. inconsistencies are causing banks to close accounts of diplomats because of anti-money