working out, it is usually not because they are excessive. there are unintended consequences. we should examine them. >> let's gossip for a second. eric smith for secretary of commerce, what do you think about that? >> google has >> do you think he is likely to take it? >> i have not asked him. >> what do you think about general petraeus? >> i have not thought about it. cornwall, a great guy. i spent years eve with him in iraq. i think that he would be a

great leader. leon panetta. i want to tell you a story about him. he is such a hard worker. we had 8 --, dick durbin was part of it. we would go home and go into that nice long room and watch sports on television. leon would go to work. he would come in at about 2 in the morning. at 5:30, i heard the bed wrestling every morning. and then he would go to st. peter's. he is an amazing individual and he has done a great job at the cia. it would be hard to fill his shoes if he leaves. >> and do you think that director panetta is likely to

become -- >> i will not commented he is likely but i think he would be a great choice. >> i know a deal is not a deal until it is nailed down. can you tell us one contentious issue that has been resolved in the shutdown debate? can you tell us one real honest to goodness sticking point that remains? >> the issue that has been resolved is that we will have significant cuts. the debate between some who say we don't need any cuts at all. some who said a freeze is good enough, they have moved to the middle on that.

there are a lot of riders on planned parenthood, etc.. i don't think that at least inside of the heads of the republican leadership, this might be well whole leadership, they know they don't belong in the budget. >> this theory is that they would allow the shutdown for saturday, sunday. >> i prefer to see no shutdown. this is disruptive. our economy is moving at a nice clip and the thought of it shakes up the confidence of business people and credit markets. the idea of doing it for a few days is a bad idea. >> do you think that is something in their mind? >> i don't know. you would have to ask them.

i eat a lot of this. >> good thing you are not a rat. >> you want to hear a story about this? the head of sweet and low, who formed sweet and low. he formed it in my district. he was a chemist at domino sugar. in the 50's he figured out that you could granulate saccharin. we remember when saccharin was a pill and you had a spoon and you put it in here. he figured you could granulated and he said, we will make money, blah blah blah. he forms his own company called sweet and low. this is an alfred lord tennyson poem about a river. he paid his workers top dollar, he gave them a great benefits.

he would only sell it if you will not fire my workers and pay them. the government goes a little nutty. the democrats have to be aware of this. so, he calls me up and says, they are going to put a business. i said, what is going on. he said, they said sacker into white rice -- dave -- they said sacker into white mice. he said, we have done experiment where we feed the exact same amount of sugar to white mice and they get cancer. it has nothing to do with the second. if you feed a white mouse, it forms crystals in the bladder and it gives them cancer. i met with the fda over and

over -- by the way, this very wealthy company has a knockoff of sweet and low. they used the pink package. this is probably made in china. come on. where is your patriotism? >> next time we will give you some real fake sugar. >> the compromise was for 10 years, that hackett had to say that it has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. now it does not say it anymore and sweet and low is moving again. >> the house has given some pretty tough cuts to regulatory agencies but these were less than people expected.

the think they will weigh the consequences of going too far? >> i hope they will. i have tried in the financial services bill. every time there is a trade in stock, a little bit goes to fund the sec. one -- some of that is used for other purposes. as a result, they are not up to snuff. more importantly, the computers and the financial, i don't know how you call it but the technology that you need to stay on line with the smartest financial firms in the country, they need at this. so, to cut back significantly on the sec makes no sense at time when even if you don't agree with some of the bill, you know

that under the old regime they did not have enough people or technology to keep up and down that is one of the reasons why madoff got away with what he did. it made no sense. we will fight hard to keep it strong. senator durbin is part of the appropriations subcommittee. they might have had second thoughts because it would be a huge policy mistake and what would follow the policy would be bad politics. >> you have a fictional family that you talk about. why do talk about them? >> that is where i think it should be named. >> that hasn't been the case. >> the purpose of my book and my

political career. that is where i come from. the hard right philosophy of cutting government will not work. this has resonance because they had seen 35 years of post world war ii prosperity. having been in politics for so long, the average swing voter -- in 1980, they said, you don't need this government.

government, when it was doing things it was doing things they did not like. it resonated. now, reaganism has been refined and rarified. 30 years later, when you tell them that you are fine on your own. it is the government causing problems. forget it. clare mccaskill said this. she said, the average american family doesn't blame teachers and firefighters and cops and nurses for the problems america has. you know what, mice message to some of my friends on the far right is, better feedback. >> -- used to feed the o'reilly is. where does that come from? >> i don't know where that came from. we changed the name deliberately.

we wanted a more universal name. >> what do you think of the nasdaq? >> i look through it at a new york prison. i wanted to stay the financial capital of the world. i looked to see if any of the mergers made that happen. my worry about the merger, as i made clear, i think the name matters. in this case it matters.

the new york stock exchange brand is the greatest brand. my worry about the nasdaq takeover is jobs in new york because there would be a lot of duplication and competition. whereas with the nasdaq and the nyse being one, you would have virtually no competition. >> on the german and, as visibility gets more traction, can you imagine that there would be an issue? >> know. i don't think so. -- no. >> the dubai situation was

because they did not go through the -- process. the second is pretty obvious. smuggling a nuclear weapon on a ship could create real problems in a country that did not have any terrorism themselves but was known to tolerate terrorists living there. the germans don't have that record and owning a financial institution will not cause it. >> you are the number 3 democratic leader. >> that is your own speculation. >> i wonder where that came from and how that has worked for you. >> it is it meyer harry reid. -- i admire harry reid.

i am very close to my personal family, obviously. my colleagues are like my second family. i have two birthday parties, one with my family in new york and one with my colleagues here. i care about this caucus. i just want to do whatever makes a better caucus. i enjoy my job. everyone says you are ambitious but i never laid out a plan. i was in the assembly, i hate went to congress. -- i then went to congress. being in the minority is not much fun. >> you might find out in the senate. >> i have been in majority senate, minority senate. only one is really bad news. we will fight hard not to be and

i don't think that we will be. we will keep the majority. when i went to college, i thought i would major in chemistry. two things happened, i got cut from the basketball team. someone knocked on my door that night. i thought i would make it the basketball team. i got a knock on my door and said how would you like to join the harvard john democrats. we are working for a man named eugene mccarthy in the new hampshire primary. the answer was chemistry. i love organic chemistry. this was a lot of fun. for any viewers who have taken organic chemistry, you do these long experiments.

you were synthesizing chemicals. if you mass at step 45, you don't go back to 44, you start over. this was the final experiment. i knew it would take a long time. i went up to the laboratory and started working on it. i could not get it to work. i had my dinner at 6:00, it is midnight, it is 2 in the morning, four in the morning. so frustrating to start all over again. finally, at about 5:30 a.m., the blue crystals turned and it felt great. there was no one to share it with. i have been an elected official

for 37 years. when you wake up monday morning, but do you feel that you cannot wait to go to work. when you go home friday afternoons, and you cannot wait to be with your family, and god has blessed you. >> thank you. given what the senate has, wouldn't today be a make or break day in terms of trying to broker a deal over the shut down? up front you can see that john boehner has a very difficult situation on this hands in terms of trying to get a deal done and the democrats and senate are trying to be amenable to that.

there was a $40 billion figure, the other was a one week temporary -- coupled with the funding for the defense budget. with the cuts that the democrats have agreed to, what makes the extra 7 billion so compatible to your side. in order to avoid a shutdown, why would the senate democrats be willing to do this? >> we think we have gone the extra mile with the 33 billion. this is more than halfway. when you go much above 33, you really start cutting into the bone, to the college age, the cancer research. they keep moving the goal post back. this is very difficult to negotiate when you don't have much faith even that this will

not -- in reference to your second question. we did not take seriously that offer. first, they put in a writer on abortion. 12 billion cuts and an increase in defense. there is waste not only on the domestic side. this did not start with the democrats, donald rumsfeld started making a campaign about waste on the defense side. it was a very biased approach and we did not take it very seriously. on the first question, if we come to an agreement, things will work out. the house has this 72 hours rules. you might say that tonight is it. >> they will not on this. >> if we come to an agreement,

the procedural stuff will work its way out. >> you mentioned that the democrats would keep the majority. what are the 23 to the races that you see that will be crucial? >> i will give you an outline instead of picking two or three. >> these are your babies. these are the class that came in when you were the chairman. >> they are a fabulous group of people. they are amazing. let me just say this, i think we will keep the senate and i will give you my analysis which answers your question. you look at it in macro, 23 democrats, five democratic

requirements, it will be next to impossible. let's start with each group. the five democratic retirements, north dakota will be tough. connecticut, new mexico, hawaii, and virginia, i bet we will win all of those. hawaii is a very democratic state. i would bet on tim kane against george allen any day of the week. >> there are lots of states where they could be pickups. the two-party is running against candidates in indiana who are popular with the general electorate but might not meet the needs of the republican primary. i think that we can pick up a few seats.

our incumbents are doing great. clare mccaskill, her brand is amazing. i love her. she is the greatest. there was a recent poll in not the whole state but in st. louis and st. louis county. her numbers were great. they were great. similar to nixon, not richard but the governor. similar to other democrats. anyone who bets against clerc mccaskill will lose their money. -- clear mccaskill will lose their money. >> she investigated herself and brought out what happened and

fixed it. >> i would bet you that we will actually keep the senate. >> you touched on financial services. the issues between the banks and credit unions, one of these is about small business lending. do you think that they will be ?oving on senator udall's bill >> if you believe in small business lending, why not what the credit unions do some small business lending as well. i see this as a chance. the limit on small business lending by credit unions was passed with some sort of compromise that had very little to do on the merits with whether they should or should it and it makes sense.

>> in a second, senator schumer will go to his day job. he will ask you baseball trivia. >> the key players to hit at thousand hits -- two players hit a thousand hits. people guess frank robinson but he did get a thousand for two teams. here are some hints. sherrod brown is great but i stumped him on the closing. we exchange baseball trivia. here is a hint. in the american league, one of

these was a yankee. in the national, a san diego padre. >> dave winfield. >> the second one will really get you. he is an active player and he is playing for the texas rangers. he also got a thousand for the expos. anyone who gets that thousand hits for the montreal expos is really good. >> ask an easy one. >> i will look this up if you love baseball. there are nine players before the year 2001 the ndp two years in a row. the amazing thing is that they make up the nine positions. one was a catcher. three-way yankees.

mickey mantle, right field was roger maris. i will go through it quickly. third base, philadelphia phillies. shortstop, chicago cubs second baseman, cincinnati red legs. the all this one, the philadelphia athletics. left-field, about atlanta braves. here is the hardest one, pitcher detroit tigers during world war ii when all the good pitchers were drafted. neuberger. my chief of staff knows baseball better than me.

>> you will get it played on espn. we appreciate our friends from bank of america. thank you for joining us. senator schumer, thank you for an enjoyable conversation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama says there is no deal on federal spending. the president giving this statement a short time ago after an hour and 15 minutes in a congressional meeting with leaders. the funding to keep the government operating expires at midnight on friday. >> good evening, everybody.

i have a few quick remarks. we just had a productive meeting with speaker banner -- with speaker john boehner and majority leader read. we discussed the impasse we are at with respect to the budget. i thought that the meetings were frank and construction and to clarify the issues that are still outstanding. i remain confident that if we're serious about getting something done, we should be able to complete a deal and get it passed and avert a shutdown. it will require a sense of urgency from all parties involved. it means that we have to recognize that a government shutdown has real consequences for real people. there was an interview that was done tonight on one of the nightly news network's.

a man from kentucky said he was counting on his tax rebate because his family was scraping by. he might not get it if the government shuts down. he said if he could speak directly to us, he would tell us that all this political grandstanding has an effect. i cannot have said it better myself. the shutdown could have real effect on everyday americans. it means that small business owners who are counting on that loan to open their business, to make payroll, to expand, suddenly they cannot do it. it means folks who are potentially process in the mortgage, they might not be able to get it. it means that for hundreds of thousands of workers across the country suddenly without a paycheck.

their families are counting on them being able to go to work and do a good job. there are ramifications all across this economy at a time when the economy is still coming out of an extraordinarily deep recession. it would be inexcusable given the relatively narrow differences when it comes to numbersto numbers between the p. my expectation is that folks are going to work through the night. in the morning, i will check in with the staff as well as my team here. if we have not made progress, we will go back at it again. we're going to keep on pounding away at this thing. i am convinced we can get this done. there is no reason why we should

not be allowed to get a deal. there is no reason to levy shut down unless we make a decision that politics is more important. that is not why we are elected. i want to meet the expectations of the american people in terms of delivering for them. thank you very much. >> negotiations continue for the budget. house republicans said they would vote tomorrow and the spending bill to keep the government running. coming up, commissioner douglas shulman. and later, ongoing budget negotiations. we will have live coverage of hearings tomorrow on c-span 3.

susette -- susan rice on the un. that is at 1030 eastern. officials from the military branches will talk about implementing new policies to allow gays to serve openly. you can watch love of the hearings live on c-span. >> with spending expiring and the threat of a shutdown, house and senate leadership continues the discussion to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. access the debate and see what your elected officials said at c-span congressional chronicle with transcripts of every house and senate special -- session. >> this weekend on " tv, -- book

tv, been presented criticism of health care legislation. jeff presents three alternate histories. the jfk administration that never was. the reelection of gerald ford and the feet of ronald reagan. he is interviewed by ted koppel. also, live coverage from the annapolis book festival with panels on war, scientists, race, and more. but for the schedule at booktv.org. >> the head of the irs spoke today at the national press club. he emphasized that this year's filing deadline would not be pushed back by a government shutdown. he also talked about the future of u.s. tax system. this is one hour.

>> good afternoon and welcome. leaders fororld's journalists. while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site? press.org. you can see more see act press.org/library. i would like to welcome our speaker. her table includes working journalists to our club members. if you hear applause in our audience, we would like to note

that members of the public are attending. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. we also have podcasts for free downloads on itunes. you can follow the action on the twitter. after a test speeches, we will have a question and answer. now it is time to introduce a head guess. as i have each of you, stand up briefly. we will begin from your right. ellen, a freelance journalist and president of the club of washington. kevin, editorial director ed kipling -- kiplinger. mark, investment news reporter.

the washington bureau chief of the past week. we will skip over the podium for a moment. melissa, chair of the speaker's committee. skip over the speaker for a moment. press secretary at the natural resources defense council. she organized today's event. jody is tax policy team leader with bloomberg news. linda stern, reuters. peter, editor of the tax collector. and ralph, director of the business coalition china program. now you can give your applause. [applause] >> as talk of whether the congress and the administration can reach an agreement on how to spend the taxpayer's money, our guest is in charge of collecting

those dollars in the first place. now in the third year of his five-year term, he is responsible for collecting 2.4 trillion dollars of tax revenue. with more than 100,000 employees and a budget of $12 billion, he has significant federal resources as -- at his disposal as he prepares for the filing deadline. a few years later than -- days later because of emancipation day in the district of columbia. with belt-tightening budget crunching felt in many households, even the irs budget is facing cuts. one week ago, the ways and means committee proposed a $3 billion cut which would lead to a collection of four billion dollars less in taxes and could lead to lower compliance.

a potential shutdown would affect tax returns and filing and refund checks, it remains to be seen. we will get into that as well. he has told congress there is never been a set that in the middle of tax filing season. that is a new challenge. the government accountability office has supported the income tax through march. that is up from last year. the percentage of returns electronically filed is 89% up from last year. douglas shulman came from the regulatory authority. that is the private sector regulatory of all securities firms doing business in the u.s.. he served in the same role where -- with the new york's stock exchange, that resulted in the formation of it.

earlier, he was involved in several step -- start-ups. he holds a bachelor's degree from williams college. a master is a public affairs from harvard. and a georgetown law degree. i would like to note the commissioner was my guest lester's correspondents' dinner. tonight it is a pleasure to have him in a more congenial setting. when you introduce the irs commissioner to celebrities. queen latifah literally about to him. -- bowed to him. rachel re and said she would cook for him any time. [laughter] please give him a warm welcome. [applause] >> i had forgot about queen

latifah. [laughter] thank you for the gracious welcome. thank you for inviting me back to the national press club. a few weeks back, i celebrated my 30 year, the anniversary of being the irs commissioner. milestones like that are a good time to reflect. think about what you have gotten done, what you have accomplished, what you have learned, and what lies ahead. it has certainly been an interesting journey so far. some things i expected, others that i did not expect. one of the most pleasant surprises, and there are pleasant surprises, one of them was that this large organization is so responsive,

so agile, and so nimble. the irs are literally turned on a dime multiple times during the worst recession in our generation. what we were called in to help millions of a distressed americans get money, send money, make it through some tough economic times, we sent out hundreds of billions of dollars on short notice to help jump- start the economy. we played a major part in the recovery. i and my team are quite proud of that. we have accomplished a bunch of other things in the past three years. we have improved service to taxpayers. we have been debated in technology and on the web. we cracked down on offshore tax abuse. we have launched a major initiative with the return committee -- community to make

sure we boost compliance and service to the american taxpayers. i have learned a great deal. that is a process that will never stop. i have learned about the inner workings of the tax system. what we expect the taxpayers and, more importantly, what taxpayers expect of us. this strikes me is a good moment to open the aperture and reflect about what the tax system could look like in the future. i want to take us out to the horizon of the system. let me quote paul allen who observed, "i tried to anticipate what is coming. to hasten its arrival. lives apply a to people's in meaningful ways."

that is what i would like to do today. to see how we can make a meaningful difference in both our tax system ended taxpayer lives. and to begin a dialogue, with the practitioner community, and other people affected, about how we can secure a lasting change. ever since i have been commissioner, my priority and core of leadership principle is about continuous improvement. i'm a big believer that institutions, if they are standing still, they are falling behind. the world around us is always moving forward. it is a lot quicker than in the past. i believe we should perform the best we can today but we need to embrace the change. we need to perform better in the future. when you talk about the future

and have a vision of the future, that does not mean you need to be futuristic, like a science- fiction novel. i think we can challenge ourselves collectively to see how far we can go and how far we can push the system to make an impact on taxpayers. president kennedy once said, i am an idealist without illusions. in a bit of irony, what i want to pause it today is that for the irs to move forward, our first step is to examine what has been woven into the dna of the tax system since its inception in 1862. that is looking back at the core business model. what a significant percentage of our resources are devoted to helping taxpayers understand the

law, the compliance side of the irs is largely predicated on looking back. the taxpayer prepares his or her return, files it with us, we processed it and we issue a refund if the taxpayer is of one. digowe --owed one. for the irs, our compliance work begins now. sophisticated risk models help the irs staff identify returns that are most likely to show compliance problems. although i sometimes hear people talk about the audit lottery, the process is far from random. the irs uses cumulative knowledge and data that gathers

over many years to model and target activity that has the highest probability of tax avoidance. once we identify taxpayer burma -- taxpayer with that probability, we follow up with them to better understand the issue, request documentation, and determine whether the return is accurate. it is the model of most major tax system in the world that have developed economies. it has some flaws. the biggest deficiency is that it does not deal with taxpayer problems up front. an irs audit occurs years after the return is filed. we have three years to audit and individual tax return. we can have more time if there is a 25% omission of income or

fraud. i would like to speak, we are interacting with taxpayers who file their returns, when i became commissioner three years ago. this after the fact complaints come -- approach can create the frustrations for taxpayers and us. it can be a dilemma for taxpayers who may no longer have the money that was refunded to them but, as it turns out, they were not entitled to the refund. there is also possible sticker shock. interest and penalties can accrue during the time it takes to get to them. it may have been accruing for up to three years. taxpayers often ask, why did you notify me sooner? this her defies -- this hurts

the irs. we all know it is much easier and cheaper to resolve problems up front and not let them faster. i spent time with my employees of the time. when we identify a problem, it is human nature to put it off. we tried to identify them right away. the new not get better over time. that is why consumers often get a call from a credit card company. the minute you miss a payment, due to take a call. at least you do not get into debt over multiple of years or inadvertently get into debt. i think taxpayers can rightly wonder why they cannot receive the same timely response from the irs and not to get stuck down the road with interest and penalties. i have spent a lot of time thinking about this. thinking about the concept that a tax system is run after the

fact. we have been accelerating our programs to flag issues up front and to avoid the book back problem altogether. we have increased our compliance activities that have been up front before we finish processing a return. most of that increase and push since i have been here has been around the unit that analyzes tax returns that claimed a substantial refund. our systems sift through millions of returns and billions of datapoint to identify questionable returns. and to flag those that could be fraudulent. increasingly, we are also consulting other databases to spot inconsistencies on a return. as a result, we bought billions of dollars of returns that could

be going out the door fraudulently and verify the accuracy of those returns. in some cases, the taxpayer simply forgot to attach the required documentation. in that instance, once sufficient information is given to us, we get the refund out to them. in other places, the claims are fraudulent. often part of the rings of tax cheats. sometimes even run out of prison. our success rate in blocking these schemes is very high. it is only getting better as we improve our capabilities. as we think about the future and ways we can more aggressively move to resolve issues up front at the time of filing, a number of complicated issues are rise.

many of them involves information returns that we receive every filing season. you probably know these returns by their form number. the most ubiquitous r d w-2 and the 1099. to give you some perspective, 40 years ago received about three and 60 million information return documents. today, we will receive about 2 billion information returns. think about a typical taxpayer who works in an office or a store and owns his or her own home. he or she has the w-2 but also information returns for mortgage interest, dividends, distributions from a credit union, or other securities. there may even the eighthk1. -- a k1.

everyone in the audience knows when they come to your house, and the use the measure. these returns foster voluntary compliance since they are filed with the irs. people know about. it is often overlooked what date real time saver these can be for taxpayers. the standardized formatting and the data that people receive been transcribed, it makes it possible for today's robust tax software industry to work. let me give you a peek behind the curtain at the irs. first, in many cases, we receive the information returned after a taxpayer files their return. we go through a lengthy process of collating and matching all of

these documents that we get with taxpayer returns. this can be further complicated if it is a joint return where we have to marry both john and jane doe onto a jointly filed return. while these information returns have been the tax system a lot more efficient than in the past, i also believe they are the source of the next generation of innovation. that is what i want to elaborate on today. a new structure for tax administration. one that i think brims with the opportunity and would be a fundamental shift in the way we run the tax system. in essence, i believe that taxpayers, third parties, and the government would be better served if we tried to move as many of our processes forward as

we could and reduce the need for interactions as a basic mode of operation. the division is relatively straightforward. the irs would get all information returns from third parties like the w-2 and th 1099 before taxpayers file their returns. they could then access that information from the irs via the web been down loaded into their returns using commercial tax software. taxpayers would add to that information down loaded, and any supplemental information, and then file with us. we would take the information that was sent to us before that

return and we would in bed that information to our core prescreening filters. we would reject any return the did not match our records. we would reject the return and ask you to fix it before we process that. we would then have more accurate returns and deal with many more problems up front. we could actually shift resources and spend more money trying to get right in the first instance and do less back and auditing. let me say, that vision is much easier articulated than executed. it could not be pulled off overnight. in order to execute it, we would need some fundamental changes to our operation and to the private sector process. let me talk for a minute about

what would have to change as a prerequisite to moving the tax system in this direction. first, it would take a major reworking of our core technology system. i will tell you that we could not have even thought about this, and i would have never articulated a position of this a few years back before we run a solid path to complete our core customer account database we callcade ii. we have been working to get our information -- individual taxpayer account into a modern database that processes on a daily cycle. this new database will allow taxpayers to receive faster refunds and it will eliminate some of the structural technology problems that could lead to timing problems with notices that are sent.

even once we get the database done, we would have a lot of work to do in the technology arena. we would need to load and be ready to run matches with all of thew2 data that we receive from the social security administration much sooner than we do so now. we would also have to blow up 1099 dating to our systems before the return is filed. we would need be -- need to be able to match these 1099 and other documents with returns been filed. this is easier said than done given both of the budget constraints that we face and the real production issues we face during our peak filing season between january and april. performing a major technology thatncement to the system's

process all of the tax receipts , it is a very complex endeavor. to be blunt, it is not a cheap endeavor. we are making investments in our technology now that should set the stage for us to think about these kind of major shifts in the future. let me tell you in all honesty, there was an under investment in the irs technology for the past 20 years. that has left us in a deep hole. starting with the president's budget proposal, this trend has been reversed. i also say given the current debates in congress, we will have to see if we get the resources that we need to build the basic fact -- technology

infrastructure to position us for the future. in order to execute the real time tax system i laid out before, we would also need to push to get information returns into the system earlier. this would require some changes in behavior on the private sector's part as well. our partners, whether payroll practice -- or practitioners, would need to make sure the dates they work by work for the american people. dates of february 28, which is the dna -- due date for 1099 returns. those are built into our operations and into the operations of the tax community. if we want to move to an up front, a real time tax system, traditional timeline would need to be on the table for

discussion. the vision i am articulating is a potential win-win for honest taxpayers and for the government. history of science reprocess for a vast majority -- it streamlines the process for the vast majority of taxpayers. it minimizes interactions with the irs which is what most taxpayers want. as i described earlier, this would not only change the face of look back model, we do a 180 degree turn and most compliance activities will be gone up front. we would reject the return right away if the problem was detected. let me give you a simple illustration of eight real-world example we face on a regular basis at the irs.

a taxpayer mistakenly interest $2,000 in dividends on his return. however, from the 1099 that we received, we show the dividend to be $3,500. because of this mismatch, we then follow up with the taxpayer well after the taxpayer has filed to address this unreported income. under the structure i envision, it works differently. a taxpayer would begin the filing process with access to all of the information that has been reported to the irs. any discrepancy the taxpayers seized between the and vote reported to the irs and their own records could be resolved before filing their tax returns. when the records are fresh, but

also when the transactions and activities that the taxpayer has or fresh in the taxpayer's mind. the taxpayer will get it right the first time with no risk of getting a letter from us later about the mismatch and with new risk of interest and penalties on the delta of. the better use of information and data has long been a priority of mine. i been talking about it for three years. details are huge. taxpayers avoid the hassle factor. that back and on it are more focused on issues that require real follow-up. we would see it real significant gains in both service and compliance that had the potential to save billions of dollars across the public and private sectors and reduce administrative burdens. some people, including me, ask questions. if we let taxpayers know what we

know, with their be lower compliance and or complaints rights? i think there are two answers to that question. first, of course, there will still need to be after the fact audits and other types of after that that compliance activity to make sure that we maintain overall levels of voluntary compliance. but i will tell you, i think we can do more work up front and less on its on the back end and we would still have complaints boost under this scenario. second, i share an organization comprised of tax commissioners from around the globe. many countries now isolate make information they have available to taxpayers and nine have reported a drop in compliance. where do we go from here? first of all, at this early

juncture, i do not see this as a plan or a blueprint with proposed structures, time lines, and the liberals. what i am actually offering is a vision for a journey that is formally grounded in reality but brimmed with potential. i cannot tell you when this will happen. and i do not think it will happen overnight, but it certainly is not too soon to start a dialogue on the vision and engage the business community in that dialogue. it is certainly not too soon to start scoping out the technology worked that we would need to do to make this next big leap -- a generational leap in habitat system works. this is all about working smarter read in the case of the irs, it means involving to keep pace with change, constantly

looking ahead, and try to be more innovative and imaginative with the resources at our disposal and with the resources on the tax system outside of the agency. i think we are now at the point where we can lift our heads above the daily and weekly friday and begin a dialogue about a shift in the tax structure. as our new customer account engine goes on line, we actually have a key foundation for this. as our e-file rate continues to go up -- last year we crossed the 70% threshold -- we now have data coming to us in the digital format, which is a prerequisite to quicker population of data and moving towards a real-time. in modern technology, we can now do much quicker than we could before. we can process exponentially more information than it could

more than a generation ago. both our internal factors and external factors make the time right for big, broad, and long- term thinking about the way we do business. let me wrap up by saying that, again, this is not a plan, but it is not a dream either. what i describe today, a vision for a real time tax system for the nation, is real and doable. it is something we are going to discuss with stakeholders and with our internal team. my goal is to keep pushing the agency to imagine the future and to make the tax system work better for the american people. let me leave you today with some final words that franklin delano roosevelt wrote shortly before his passing by in april 1945 for

a speech he never delivered. he wrote, "the only limits to our realization of tomorrow will be our dealt of today." thank you for listing. i look forward to taking a few questions. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for that. i think we will get more to the content of the speech before we get some real time news questions out of the way. on everybody's minds today is the risk of an eminent government shut down. it could not have caught the irs at a worse time. many of the questions i have received here are all about that. let's try to do a couple of minutes about the nuances of that. i imagine this is something you have been working on a to the minute of leaving your office

this morning. the question many people want to know -- maybe they need to make a tax payment or are awaiting a tax refund? what can people expect? >> as i said, it is a good time to step out of the daily trade operations and envisions of the future. márquez brought us right back down to the daily fray. i think the president has made very clear that his goal is not to get a shot down, that a shutdown would not be good for the american people, and i knew the government negotiators are working hard to avoid a shutdown. as you have said, april 8 is not a great day. yes, of course, we like every agency in government have been

doing some contingency planning. i think the most important thing for me to communicate is that the american people should file their taxes. as you mentioned, the deadline is april 18 this year. people are required to file by april 18. while we are not going to have a full complement of operations, if the government were to shut down, the irs will be accepting tax returns. the due date still remains april 18. what i want to do is encourage people whether there is a shut down or not to file electronically. i will tell you, in the event of the shutdown, people really should file electronically because most of these returns are processed automatically and will not experience any delays.

however, taxpayers who file paper returns will experienced some delays if we end up in a government shutdown. i wanted to say again, the goal of everybody is not to be shut down. these are all contingency plans. >> processing continues, but there is a delay in the processing of refunds. is that correct? >> electronic returns, people should rest -- people should expect to see no change in processing. unless a return is flagged for some reason, people should expect to seek refunds quickly. paper returns -- there probably will be a delay in returns -- in refunds. >> more nuances to that question -- will in the chief counsel

work on pending regulations continue in the event of a government shutdown and, if so, what regulations might be the focus? >> just for the preludin, the most important thing for me to communicate to everybody here and everybody watching is file your tax return. [laughter] we are going to be accepting returns. electronically filed. you will not see any delay. any nuances -- we have 100,000 employees. not all of them will be coming to work. the nuances of who is going to be doing what i am not ready to get into. we are going to be accepting tax returns and people should file. >> do you think longer-term or in the intermediate term that adversely affects either the job you want to do on an ongoing basis, meaning tax enforcement

and compliance -- does it do any damage? >> again, i will not speculate on what is going to happen. i am quite hopeful that budget negotiators work something out and we do not have a shot down. what i will tell you, we are involved in the running of government part, not the policy making part of government. we run a huge financial services operation that has 140 million clients that have tens of millions of nonprofit and businesses we interact with every day. we have a $12 million budget. funding the government two weeks at a time is not a great way to operate. we need to actually plan for hiring. we need to plan for attrition, travel, training, systems. not knowing the kind of resources we have is not helpful. the president has articulated

this very clearly that this would not be good for the american people to have this kind of disruption. >> you touched on something i thought we might eventually get to any way. i will bring that up for the moment. at the end of the day, argued essentially agnostic to tax policy? is it all about enforcement and customer service, the customer being the taxpayer? we get a lot of questions about this kind of tax in that kind of tax. if the date came got to use the example, that there was a flat tax and it was your job to administer that, would you say that was our job and that is what we have to do? >> congress writes the tax law. our job is to take the loss on the books and make sure they get administered in a fair way to the american people. i am very focused on running

fair, balanced programs. the vast majority of americans and their experience with dust, and they get a refund deposited directly into their account. that is the last they see a bus. -- that is the last they see of us. we can see where part of the tax law treats them up, where honest mistakes or may, where there are grey areas in the law where we end up in fights or controversy, especially with corporate taxpayers. our job is to administer the laws on the books. i considered the agency and non- political agency, or really an apolitical agency and we try to stay out of the fray of policy and stay in the fray of helping americans.

>> to paraphrase -- would that not require less resources to process returns and, therefore, i get a budget-cutting environment, your agency could theoretically be at risk, but towards a goal of greater appliance at the same time? >> the way i think about our budget -- i tell you what resources we need to implement the task given to us. congress gets to decide what resources we get. i have to pay the consequences if we do not get those resources. our job is to serve the american people and be public servants. we have a staff appropriate for the size of the task at hand. it the cast changes, which raised that. you'll never find me as the leader concerned that our budget

got cut. the one thing i'd focus quite a bit on -- we can have a pretty strong voice -- is simplification. we see a lot of taxpayers who get caught up in the nuances of the tax law. they get caught up in the ever- changing tax law? -- ever-changing tax law. me and our senior staff spent a lot of time in helping congress and the administration see ways where we can simplify the code to make the experience better for the american people. >> de you expect the tax code to become simplified at some point in the not so distant future? >> one of my favorite statistics -- i run the irs, so i get a lot of statistics -- the tax code

is four times as long as war and peace and only getting longer. every year i have someone on my came out of how many tax law changes there are. it is hard to count. it depends on if you change a comma or at a word. in 2000, there have been 3500 changes to the tax code. i do not have a crystal ball, but we have been going in the wrong direction for simplification. with that said, the president of the state of the union address talked about this. the treasury secretary has been spending time on this. everybody would like to see a simpler tax code, but it is complicated. there is real money at stake. >> we did not have a round of applause when the accountants in the office heard about the changes.

here is a question for the audience -- we hear about a -- the u.s. ambassador to switzerland said a fuse days ago that there was a misunderstanding with credit suisse. is this something you are aware of? >> i am prohibited by law to talk about any specific taxpayer. as commissioner of the irs, it is a good idea for me to abide by the law. i will not comment on any particular taxpayer. what i can say is that sense i showed up at the irs, i have made cracking down on offshore tax abuse a priority of mine and the agency. when president obama came into office and secretary geithner came, they focused a lot on this

issue. the president gave us more it resources to pursue international tax evasion. the secretary has put this on the g 20 agenda and has made this a focus to get more cooperation. we have come a long way. first we had a major case against ubs which brought in an unprecedented 4000 names that switzerland actually sent to us. it is the first time switzerland has broken bank secrecy and set real names of real taxpayers to the government. as part of this initiative, which created a voluntary disclosure program. we told people that we were putting more resources out and you should come in and pay your back taxes. there are very stiff penalties. we got -- we thought 1000 or 2000 people would come forward.

we had 18,000 and counting to the door. we had a non voluntary disclosure program coming now. what i told people is these 18,004 thousand, we have a view into their advisers, their banks, their accounts. we are using that data to pursue the next wave. this is a multi-year effort. it is not going to stop. we have other banks and other individuals and other promoters in our sights. there are active investigations. we want to make sure people keep coming in. the ultimate goal is to deter this behavior from having an shift the way so that people do not think about parking assets overseas and not paying taxes because the risk of getting caught is so great. >> there seems to be some concern about exposure to problems like this around the world. this does not seem to involve a

particular entity, but does involve a large nation. we have some citizens from that country visiting here today. does the irs have any cooperation with chinese authorities? i understand there some complicated legal issues involved there as well. >> i am chairman of the foreign tax administration, which is the main body that organizes all the tax commissioners. we have gotten a lot more cooperation and information exchange with other governments. we actually have a washington office and a london office -- the joint information tax shelter info center. we have collated staff to look it schemes and scams using the

appropriate treaty stands exchange of information documents. i think every country -- sometimes countries end up in tax competition were either they get the money or we get the money and make sure there is not double taxation. we entreaties for that. when it comes to citizens parking assets overseas, there is a commonality of interest. there has been a lot more information flow in the recent years and i anticipate this to continue. >> i did see a release on your website about this the other day. i am not sure the question is on the mark. white has the irs not been more fourth corning -- more forthcoming in processing first- time homeowner payment returns? >> for people who do not serve

our website as often as we would like, let me give you a little bit of information. during a two-year period, congress passed three different first-time home warrior -- homebuyer credits. the first one was actually at fault -- a loan using the tax system. yet to pay back $500 a year. the next two or actual credits -- i will say that these were all passed at a time where the drag on the housing market was a major factor contributing to the economic downturn. we actually put $27 billion of tax credits out to help people buy homes, which was a major factor in stabilizing the housing market. it does not come as far as everybody would like, but it

stopped falling off a cliff. i talked about us playing a big part in the economic recovery. that is an important piece of it. the first one, though, as creative as it may have been for congress to come up with, will make a loan. it presented some unique challenges. our system and our processes is you of taxes, you pay it to the government, you put it quite -- we put it in the treasury. we are not a loan operation. while all of these 3500 tax changes were coming, here is a unique one or we had to set it up like a loan operation. i would encourage congress in the future is not to do this. this is not how we are structured. we had a lot on our plate. as you can imagine, when we set up something new in the ruby

kinks in the system. we icily had people repaying and had an issue with married filing joint. they got the loan or homebuyer credit when they were single. we had a problem matching it in our system. we delayed some refunds. we remain aware of it and we fix the problems. in the next week or so, all the refunds are going out. >> i watched the youtube channel. >> if it is very ag. -- very edgy. [laughter] >> we had a story about eight data breach. it seemed to be significant. we do not know there is any money stolen yet. it seems like the federal government and the irs would be the holy grail of the pack but that destination. what can you do to assure people that you have everything in

place to avoid that? >> that is a great question. taxpayers and individuals living in the u.s. are asked to send some of their most sensitive information to us. what your investments like, etc.. we take data security and very seriously. i told my staff early on that a major data breach is not something we have any desire to have. i want to identify the potential issues and put them on our agenda. we attack it from multiple perspectives. we have a cyber-security unit. we actually coordinate with other parts of the government that have critical infrastructure for the country so that we block things.

we have very stringent policies and laws to track internal threats. we have 100,000 employees. they are great employees an incredible public servants, but we need to make sure that none of the breaches come inside. we have zero tolerance for anyone accessing data bases they do not have access to. as we build our systems, i make sure and i will not import -- approved a system that does not have appropriate data security. we have not had a major breach. we take it very seriously. it is very complicated stuff, but we are very much on top of it. it has attention for the agency all the way to the top. i stand personal time on it. >> i want to alert you to a big anniversary coming up. july 1, 2012, you probably know about it. it will be the 150th anniversary

of the revenue act of 1852 in which the office of internal revenue was established. i want to know if there will be a big party? why is planned to mark the event? >> we take it very seriously the mandates to tighten our belts and make sure every dollar is spent wisely, but there are no parties at the irs this year. >> one serious question and i have one that might not be so serious. you are nearing the end of your term. would it be your pleasure to serve another term as irs commissioner again? >> what i tell everybody is this has been an incredible opportunity. it is a real honor to serve the american people doing this. rather than answer you, that is actually the president's call. what i tell people is the first conversation, if i am asked to

do so, would be with my first wife do i intend to keep as my first wife. [laughter] any discussion will happen there first. >> we are almost out of time. a couple of basic housekeeping matters to take care of. , like to remind our audience about upcoming luncheon speakers. a april 19, ted turner will talk about the energy situation in our country. we might even get a question in to mr. turner as to how he feels cnn is fairing these days. the former adviser to president obama will be our guest. later in the month, the president of the afl-cio will be here with plenty of issues facing organized labor these days. in terms of housekeeping issues,

a couple of other things to take care of. before we get to the last question, all of like to thank you with our traditional coffee mug. that is below $25, so you do not have to report it. typically, that would be the end of our gift presentation, but because of the situation you are facing these days with the tax season among us, we do not know what our leaders are going to do with getting the budget situation taking care of, we have some special national press club aspirin. [laughter] [applause] that is a new market for us, but we are very excited about it. our last question, to the best of your knowledge, has an irs commissioner ever been audited? [laughter] >> what i can tell you is as you become commissioner of the irs,

almost every competent tax lawyer and professional in the federal government takes a very good look at your return to make sure you do not embarrass the president and the treasury secretary. i do not know about the question of audit date, but you get a lot of people in the government looking at your tax returns. been there, done that. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker today. [applause] thank you for coming. i would like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's is dead. it in five more information about the national press club on our website. please check it alp at www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up next on c-span, a house hearing on a newly created regulatory agency. congressional leaders talk about ongoing budget negotiations. later, the house budget committee worked on next year's federal spending plan. on washington journal tomorrow morning, the focus on federal

spending and the negotiations to reach a budget to avoid a government shutdown on friday. our guests are representative mick mulvaney, david cicilline, dennis ross, and john yarmuth. we will look at the effects of a shutdown which washington post reporter ed o'keefe. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 eastern. >> you are not necessarily a republican or democrat. you are at an impasse as to what government is doing on the financial markets whether it be the oil markets, trading, where wall street firms. >> sunday, melissa lee on her career and influences and what

she believes is our role in reporting business and financial news. was the interview sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a". >> policies ban on twitter. it is the fastest way to get programming and scheduling updates. you can also join in the conversation. joint the viewers who already follow our twitter feet. from c-span2 booktv, to c-span radio. get started atwitte twitter.com/cspan. >> the house financial services committee held a hearing on the new agency and heard testimony from bankers and a consumer advocate. this part of the hearing is 50 minutes.

>> i am please to represent community bankers and nearly 5000 members at this important hearing today. community bankers are deeply rooted in the communities they serve. because we cannot compete with major banks, we focus on individualized needs of our customers. we practice relationship- banking, not one-off transitional banking. our customers or friends and neighbors. any given long or other service is part of a long-term

relationship. our relationships are paramount and our conditions to our success. community bankers have an overriding incentive to treat customers well and earn their trust. the dodd-frank bill lee's committee banks -- we have a keen interest in improving the structure and procedures of the bureau and the quality of the rules the issue. billupport chairman baucus' which would restructure the cfpb so it is governed by a five-member commission rather than a single director. we need to build a system of checks and balances that cannot be matched. the commission model has worked well for other agencies.

it would help ensure that our actions are measured, nonpartisan, and result in dallas, high-quality rules and effective consumer protection. consistent with our support for commission structure, we support strengthening regulatory revolt -- review ofcfpb rules. we support congressmen that the's bill which would change the voting requirement from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority. the proposal would also changed the standard to allow for a veto over rule that is inconsistent with the safe and sound operations of the united states financial institutions. the current roll puts at risk the safety and soundness of the banking system. this is nearly impossible to meet and is extraordinary leap

are full to banks and consumers. language has been proposed to further broaden the standard to allow the -- we believe this standard would give regulators a more meaningful role. the cfpb far reaching impact should be matched by the higher standard of accountability. accountability resides with the director, appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. the basic good governance would be undermined. for this reason, we support the discussion draft that would postpone transfer function to the cfpb until its director is to confirm. the final draft would prevent

them from -- we appreciate your caution about exams. though this legislation would not affect committee banks such as mine, we believe exams are not an innocuous exercise. the so-called white along provision allows the cfpb to have input into every aspect of a small bank exam. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. we are fully committed to developing an effective consumer protection for our customers, customers of our competitors, and for the safety and soundness of the financial system. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wilcox.

>> credit unions are facing tremendous regulatory burdens that will only get worse as don frank is implemented. cuna has consistently stated that consumers of financial products, especially those served by unregulated entities, need greater protection. we believe a consumer protection agency could be an effective way to achieve that protection provided the agency does not impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on credit unions and

takes an active role in approving disclosures for customers. in order for such an agency to work, consumer protection legislation must be consolidated and streamlined. it should not add to the burden of credit unions that had been regulated for decades and performed very well. the subcommittee has given consideration to several of our concerns concerning dodd-frank. we appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the construction of the consumer protection bureau. we have had a number of conversations with the staff of treasury. we are encouraged by the staff's outreach and by the establishment of the office of community banks and credit unions. still, credit unions remain concerned that regulatory change could work to the detriment of our members. we have been asked to present our views on hr-1121.

this would replace the director with a five person commission. we would encourage the size of the commission be expanded to include appropriate industry and regulators representation, including a c specifically to a person with experience related to credit unions. this will ensure that both the consumer and industry's perspectives are represented we support the intent of hr-1315 to balance consumer protection with safety and soundness. we support the provision that would reduce the threshold. it also makes changes to the conditions in which the council can set aside your regulations. what is missing from that statute is the ability of the financial regulators to review bureau regulations in the context of overall regulatory

burdens. we could support regulations to set aside at the council determines it would unreasonably burden financial institutions and that that burden to financial institutions outweighs the benefits to consumers. we have been asked to present our views on two discussion grasphs. we believe the details of how and when the bureau wraps up is how it will function once fully operational. we believe the bureau should conduct this mission in a manner that minimizes regulatory burden on financial institutions. credit unions have not been the focus of widespread consumer complaints. we have regulators at the state and federal level that enforce consumer protection laws. we ask the congress to permit and encourage the bureau to

examine the institutions that have not had a history of consumer abuses. we would like to recommend improvements to other areas of title 10. we ask congress to require the bureau to report to congress annually on steps they have taken to reduce regulatory burden and hold hearings to review reports and consider whether foreign action -- further action is needed. we want to work with the bureau to establish a meaningful exemption process with credit unions under section 1022. we are not advocating for the -- we seek a regulatory approach in which consumer protection is maximized and regulatory burden is minimized. on behalf of america's credit

unions and 93 million members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i am pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you. the next witness is mr. richard hot. he is recognized for the purpose of making a five minute opening statement. >> my name is richard caught. i served as president of the consumer bankers association. we are the national trade association for retail banking, fulfilling the financial need of consumers and small businesses. this is where the cfpb will focus. it is no secret that we oppose the creation of the cfpb. we believe the benefits are outweighed by the problems that arise. nevertheless, our focus on helping our members prepare for this new agency, which will be their primary regulator --

regulator. we have met on numerous occasions. we acknowledge the bureau will provide some benefits such as leveling the playing field and having compress the federal oversight of tens of thousands of under regulated, not depository financial providers. if there is a theme to our comments, it is uncertainty. uncertainty creates risk, when its innovation, and does not promote competition, which, in the end, hertz consumers and small businesses alike. the absence of a confirmed director has created a time of uncertainty for bankers. we are required to promote consistency -- consistent regulatory treatment. if another agency it objects to eight rule, the bureau is

charged only with nagging the objection. in short, there is nothing that requires the director of the bureau did defer to the regulator. there is nothing to stop rules from being enacted that might cause serious harm to banks, small businesses, or consumers. to mid-size -- minimize concerned that a single, are all director -- with support a commission-led model. a commission provides an opportunity for alternative methods to be discussed. it has been effective at a number of agencies including the federal reserve, the fdic, and the sec. even the consumer product safety commission, which was the model for the cfpb, is headed by a commission. some say the bureau is checked by the oversight council. that is factually correct, but not realistic.

there are two main concerns. first, the super majority needed to overturn a rule, and second, the threshold for making such a decision. currently, members must vote for a state or a veto. says one of the two members is a director for the cfpb, seven of the remaining nine would have to vote for a state to set aside a rule. that is nearly impossible. also, would it be prudent for the cfpb having to decide it rules regarding products? that would be like my asking -- by telling someone had to comb their hair. both are out of their league. the so-called v-chip is really more of an insurance policy to protect only against the rule that would affect the safety and soundness of the banking industry or the stability of financial systems as a whole. while it is good to have a

backstop against draconian rules, it does not address routine risk for institutions. it will only come into play in the most extreme situations. this threshold should be broadened to include a substantial impact on individual financial institutions. the authority will supervise a large institutions. it should not be chance for to the bureau until a director has been confirmed by the senate. in closing, yes we support a commission-led cfpb. in the absence of any structural changes and because they would have authority to regulate institutions until a director is placed, we would urge the appointment and confirmation of a director who possesses a comprehensive understanding of the banking industry and the management skills needed to lead the agency. cba will continue to work with

members of congress and the bureau on these issues. thank you for the opportunity. >> our final witness s a georgetown university professor. you're being recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i am a professor of law at georgetown university. i am here today as an expert on consumer finance as as -- and as a scholar who is concerned. the bill being considered at this hearing would appear to be legislated tweaks. let us not misstate what this hearing is really about. the issue presented by this hearing is whether congress cares more about increasing the profits of banks or protecting the financial security of american families. which is more important? that is the question. the new cfpb has not had the chance to get up and running.

there had been attempts to strangle the new agency in its crib. look at u.s. here at this witness table. there are three bankers and me. on the previous panel, there were three bankers and mr. shelton from the naacp. ask yourself who likes the cfpb and who is not. the banks are opposed to the cfpb. it is americans and the economy to what somebody looking out for them and making sure that banks do not run wild. other bank regulators, the prudential regulators failed us and we were stuck with the bill. again, this update -- does the subcommittee care more about banks for american families? i am aware that members of the committee are concerned. despite what you will hear from the banks, the cfpb is more accountable than any other

agency in the federal government. no other federal agency as its many limitations on powers. actions are subjected to judicial review. it is one of only three federal agencies that are subjected to produce. it has numerous statutory limitations on its rulemaking power and thus make detailed findings. it is prohibited from regulating non-bank businesses. it is the only federal bank regulators subject to [unintelligible] the cfpb has a cap. the banks in this chamber might think this gap is too high, but i have never heard them complain

about the lack of budgetary control at the fed. the all -- they only seem to be worried about budgetary independence when [unintelligible] it is it is the only bank regulator that is subject to a veto. i have not heard any calls to suggest that the fed should have similar vetoes. it is also is subject to oversight by a congress. that is no small matter. no matter how -- there is no escaping the fact that no other federal regulator is subject to this. this bill would replace the director with a 5 percent commission. it poses paying five big -- five people to do one person's job. this is classic big government

bulleting waste. by having five people doing one person's job, accountability will be diminished and leadership will become less effective. there is no reason to adopt a fight person commission. if a single director is good enough for the sec, it is good enough for the cfpb. it is astonishing that anyone would want to strengthen that agency. they are the very ones who failed to insure [unintelligible] in the private sector, these regulators would be out of the job. they would not be rewarded with a veto. bank safety and soundness is a technical term. let me explain it to the committee. any profitability, at work, is nothing more than profitability. it is axiomatic that a bank can

only be safe and sound it did -- if it is profitable. the only reason to engage in predatory lending is because it is profitable. banks do not do it out of spite. any rulemaking that affects bank profitability is inconsistent with safety and soundness and is subject to a veto. dodd-frank could not be implemented because they affect bring profitability. in conclusion, the bill before this committee seeks to render the cfpb of completing the mission congress passed it with. i urge you not to delay. >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses. i would like to begin the questions.

i would like to pick it off of professor leviton. we heard ms. anderson in the first panel state unequivocally that her customers -- service to our customers is the lifeblood of our institution. she gave us some very good examples of targeted -- she talked about the burmese refugees and other folks that they've been able to target in their own communities. i would dispute that the choice is between banks or families. i would like to get mr. wilcox is a chance to weigh in on the statement. >> thank you. i appreciate that opportunity. i would like to start by suggesting that there is a difference between banks and community banks. my bank is up to hundreds $36

million committee bank. as i noted -- $236 made in committee bank. you will not fight community banks in this country that have taken advantage of the people they see at the grocery store, but to church together, and otherwise see around town. that is simply not the case. our success is dependent on the success of the people that we serve and the vibrancy of the community we operate in. that stewardship of the community is paramount for the success of community bankers from coast to coast. >> gracias. i would like to ask mr. hunt to respond. i will say this, professor, you have changed my whole line of questioning. i would like to ask in this question that prop it didn't --

probability it was safe and sound as. >> they are not exclusive. you might have safety and soundness and he must have consumer protection. we have never indicated less consumer protection. we have a saying in louisiana -- if mama is not happy, and nobody is happy. if the customer is not happy, the bank does not survive. if we do not protect consumers from getting loans, they will go to another bank. there are 7001 of the banks in the united states. you can virtually go across the street. it is imperative that we have made agency that is worried about safety and soundness as well as consumer protection. >> the you have a comment on that in terms of the credit union and in terms of profitability equaling safety and soundness? credit unions or families.

they know their members. if you like to make a statement. >> absolutely. date -- we exist for those members. we have to perform for them each and every day. at the end of the day, there has to be a little profit to make sure we are safe and sound. you have to perform for them. we are in the community. we are directly responsible to them. >> one of the bills is expanding from 01 to 5 in a commission. i think we have plenty of testimony that says that works for other government agencies. there are some of instances where there is a singular director at the helm. but to say that creating a commission contributes to bloated waste when the bill creates 1000 people in a new consumer protection agency --

and i would like to dig deeper on this -- she has gone to all these different agencies and said, all the consumer protections are going to be under this same organization within the fed. what we are finding is, yes, there are another 1000 people there, but the agencies are keeping their own parts of their consumer protection and consumer investigated parts in that agency and then the fdic will create their own oversight to make sure that mr. wilcox's bank, whatever rules and regulations are put forward, that they should answer to that. i am not sure that the lines that were drawn supposedly in this bill are going to exist if the behavior of the behaviors that are

they are still existing there, a new agency there and they need oversight in the fdic. >> i want to thank all of the panelists for being here. it will be an agency with unprecedented authority and to reach. you said it has more of limitation on its power than any other federal agency. i listened to my colleagues all day long about how it has unprecedented reach. you say there are more of limitations. can you clarify for us, please? >> with pleasure.

we can compare it to federal agencies and to other bank regulators. we tend to structure it differently than other agencies. one thing we do is we take their budgets out of the appropriations process. we do not one political influence over safety issues. the thinking was that we do not one political influence over consumer protection. it is too important to the political process. they have a cap on the budget. it the occ wants to increase the budget, it increases assessments. it cannot come to congress for a budget. the federal reserve wants to increase it, it cramps of the printing press.

it is at a percentage of the operating budget is. it seems and swims. we will make sure the consumer production will be part of regulation. it is the only agency of browns were there is a veto over the authority. it raises questions about the constitutionality of the veto.

on top of this we have a range of regular safeguards. a lot of questions that had the cfpb we do this all the time. everyone has a chance to be heard. we have a judicial review. we have these features. when you take a look of this, there really is subject to more restrictions and any other regulatory agency. it is >> there are four once

there. what he believed the -- what affect you believe it'll have? >> it would delay the implementation and rail render it less effective and accountable. >> i did not hear the testimony but i read it. he wrote that the veto system is designed under current law evita would be an impossible hurdle to meet. do you agree? >> i do. the beaten standard is a high threshold. it is worth considering the alternative. a further alternative is a

further extension of this being proposed. it is a high threshold. it is such a low threshold that every rulemaking will be subject. in august 2008, the comptroller wrote a letter to the fed ro reserve objecting to research since.

the bank regulators are likely to call anything inconsistent with safety and soundness by raising compliance costs. we should not think about extending that. every regulation doesn't disappoint -- a disproportionate effect. >> thank you. . did change might direction of questioning. you talked about a profitability. he said this is what it is all

about. to you be -- do you believe a bank losing money is better off providing safety and soundness to its customers? >> i apologize if you miss understood. i said banks safety and soundness and means profitability. a bank that is not profitable is sound is not profitable which is not safe and sound. the exact level should not be a concern for any of us. >> he believes some of the

provisions would take away the profitability? >> to the sense that certain predatory lending practices have been very profitable for banks. it will curtail it lightly. it affects safety and soundness if you say it affects profitability. banks should not be in business. i do have a the banks here are doing that. a want to emphasize this. the issue is brought about banks and credit unions. there are bad actors and both of those, but they are the salt of the earth. they are largely the larger banks. >> would you agree that some of these regulations will reduce your ability to create jobs?

>> without any question it will. it has already. we are feeling the fallout. this thing is just getting started. we are seeing the first bit of that come out to the extent there is an extension. some of those things filter down and become interpreted interviews in the regulatory process. it will challenge earnings and create an issue with that you continue to grow jobs and operate in a profitable manner. >> do you agree that it will be a reduction of the potential job status?

>> the only way a veto can be sustained and said it threatens the banking system. the sec and the federal housing agency has the seat of the table to determine retail banking. they have nothing to do with the retell banking. >> use book that he felt strongly about a single director. -- you spoke that you felt strongly about a single director. f does say that if

there is no director who has been appointed by the president on the designated transfer date come at the power goes to the treasury secretary. we would have the treasury secretary who has been confirmed exercising the powers. >> i yield back. >> i would have to say that if and theirhappen responsibilities go to the secretary of treasury, is that not postponing or delaying or throwing the whole thing into a more chaotic position? that is what i ought to believe. it concerns me. >> thank you.

i would take it that you would decree that they should be exempt from the consumer finance protection bureau? >> quite to the contrary. i was making that about -- there have been elected community banks and credit unions that failed. >> i understand that. it was not until october 1 of 2010 that the federal research -- federal reserve and publish its final rule that said "a.q.

making mortgage application, you must have written proof of your income." toomey that is so amazing. it is so elementary. you have always had that prohibition. isn't that correct? >> in practice, absolutely. >> here we have the fed that has jurisdiction over most banks that had the authority all along that could have stopped this stupid blunder in real- estate. they have the authority to do it all along. why should we trust another organization with 1000 no ploys,

untested and untried in theory? >> the cfpb has a single mission and it'll be judged. they have multiple missions. if they conflict. >> the cfpb will never be judged by the people elected in this country. i find your statement to be astounding especially in light of the fact that you were special counsel on the tarp. you find it offensive that this agency would be subjected to the appropriation process and therefore politicized. for goodness sakes, article one gives the power of the purse to the united states congress. we are directly elected by people who wanted to see oversize on behalf of the agencies. he make the statement that they goodness we have the consumer

financial protection bureau that is immune. shocked.t a >> unfortunately, there is a vigorous lobbying process. >> come on. these are little guys. but there are big as a not in the room. >> i've been through 1000 real- estate transactions. i practice law. i which are said to $5 to $100 to close. i will close in 20 minutes. along comes them. they continue to work on it and screw it up. now you have disclosure's like this. one agency on top of the other. all one had to do to stop the mill down to say you cannot give a loan unless you have written proof of your earnings. the government does not work in these situations.

it does not help one individual or saved anything. all people want to know is how much it cost me a month. he would have more regulations and rules. you do not want to the practitioners. people worked in towns with community bankers. there is something wrong. they belong to an association. they are not entitled to be represented in washington? >> no one said that. >> that is what you were saying. >> i beg your pardon. the argument i am making is that the democratic process is a sense influence by campaign contributions. we may want to be concerned about ensuring that consumer protection is insulated from financial interest. >> there is that anything in this town that is insulated from anything?

they are the ones that isolate themselves and go beyond the reach of what americans want to do. this whole argument -- if i can finish. this has been a long time. this whole argument that somehow the consumer finance group is above and beyond and has this great palin that is better than all these organizations. these people here seated to your right on a daily basis to several things. the first thing they do is always check to make sure that the people with whom they have a financial transaction can afford it. they do not government to do that. they sit down and the income tax returns and let their earnings are. they give them advice on what to do. somewhere out there, you have some people who took advantage of the system that allow people to buy homes when they cannot make the first down payment

peopl. people had it teacher loans. they could have stopped it. they did not anything that you expect. it makes absolutely no sense. one of the reasons the fed failed was that they have conflicting missions. >> the demands time has expired.

>> he noted that the requirement for the bureau to promote consistent regulatory treatment is ill-defined. could explain why it is ill- defined? >> we do not know the means and they charge a bikini cow. >> a lot of it is fear. that is why we had the mouse princts. we have fear of being fined by our regulators. we do everything we can to promote products that are beneficial to the customer. we have one eye looking at the regulator and that civil lawsuits.

we have to make sure the provision is lused correctly. they will avenge define themselves caught in a track. another agency told them to increase the capital base. >> we have about three coming up soon. we are concerned about everything these days. look at over draft. what is to prohibit them from coming over. is important that we have the ability to continue to get consistent products to our customers without fear of retribution. >> thank you.

>> you advocate for replacing the stretcher with the commission larger than has been proposed. he envisioned this to have seats on the board designated for industry representatives. would you mind lf breaking up on your suggestion and underline concerns? >> as i said in the testimony i gave, one of our biggest concerns is an undue burdens and regulation. earlier i heard all about all the horrors that went on during the past few years. we are not part of that are involved in that. i would think that any the structures that were talked about today we can move very quickly to ban those sorts of projects.

i guess our problem is when does it move from abuses into some bureaucrat idea of what may or may not be right for the consumer? we would like somebody with industry experience to buffer when the stars to cross the line from abusive to someone's idea of a better way of doing this. that is why we think somebody should be part of oversight. >> what criteria would you suggest? should they be a bank president? should they be a small bank president? should they be ap linder? >> absolutely. i was suggest that we believe the credit union should be represented. it is because of who we are into we represent. maybe cfpb come learn a few

things but they threw out how we serve members. maybe that could be the model. that expertise might help all of us. thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentleman has yielded back. that concludes the testimony from this panel. i thank you for your testimony and response. the chair notes that some members may have additional questions which they may submit in writing. without adjusting the did objection, the record will stay open -- without objection, the record will stay open. with that, at the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this is one of the top winners from the studentcam competition. it is to help them better understand the role of our

federal government. today we could to waukesha wisconsin. hello. >> hello. >> why did you choose to focus on health care for your documentary? >> i felt as though the general population did not understand what the bill really meant and what it really said. i wanted to make it so that it was an easier and easily accessible think rather than how many pages is was. i wanted to make it so that people would understand it and it was a little bit easier to understand. >> have you personally been affected by the cost of health care? >> my dad recently had a few surgeries. he has crones' disease and all search of colitis. in talking with him, he expressed it is thought that it

is really hurting us that much but he sees it in the future is to go. if this is not take effect as it should it is really going to hurt. >> how have people in wisconsin reacted to the reform act? >> the majority of people are pretty negative about it. some of the strings would be that right now children are not excluded because of pre-existing conditions for coverage on their insurance. there is no medical loss ratio. we are eliminating the doughnut

hole right now. this is some of the pros. the other issue would be that this is going to going to take a while. by 2014 we will see it restored to be better and take more people and tell everyone. as of right now, there is not too much that you can really hold onto as excellent if you know what i mean. there is a lot of little things. they will become bigger by 2014. >> what did you learn? >> i've learned so much during this documentary. talking to everybody in my community, is talking to people out of my community, sharing this video with family. other states as well. and is a great learning experience to take an issue that not many people know about and

to make it an initiative to learn about it. let's let's wash portion of the video. >> on my anesthesiologist said all you need is one major hospitalization and your file is as thick as a phone biook. >> my dad is fortunate. he knows that this could change. financial stability and could help balance on the same teacher totter. waukesha, wisconsin is a long way from washington, d.c. there are risks and costs to a program of action. it is far less than the long range risks in action. you can see this video in all the winning documentary's at studentcam.org.

>> up next, some of the day's developments on 2011 budget negotiations. peirce, a news conference with the house republican leadership. then we would hear from steny hoyer, mitch mcconnell, and then president obama. >> we will have live coverage of a pyrrhic hearings on c-span3. -- on a pair of hearings on c- span3. first, susan rice at 10:30 a.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m., an update on the repeal of the military do not ask the did not tell policy. we will talk about implementing new policies to allow gays to serve openly. you can watch both hearings live on c-span3 and c-span.org. like you are not necessarily a

republican or democrat. you are looking at the impact of what government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil markets or firms. >> melissa lee on what she believes is her role on reporting business and financial news. >> the c-span video by barry has just won a peabody award for a contribution to history, scholarship, and public light. keep a much every program that since 1987.sizin it is washington your way. but republicans and democrats in congress in the middle of budget talks in an effort to avoid a kellermann shutdown that were

happening at midnight on friday. today republican leaders discussed depreciations with capitol hill reporters. this is 10 minutes. it is hot down there. >> it is. >> a little larger turnout than usefuusual. >> it has been 46 days sent house republicans put this on a display sustainable path. the president has just said the least we can do is pass a budget. then we went to pennsylvania to work on his campaign budget. we would remind the president again house republicans have passed a bill to keep the government opened a but the nation on a fiscally sustainable path. we stand here today united with a path to prosperity budget.

the nation has an opportunity to be on the path of decline or prosperity. we will prevent tax increases we will provide the nation with a fiscally sustainable path to give confidence to go out and grow and create more jobs in america. that is what we need today. we've not seen anything but a protection of the status quo. much of this is from the chinese. this is simply unacceptable. >> i have to tell you that i like the president personally. we get along well. the president is not leaving. he is the lead on last year's budget. he is not leaving on this year's

budget. the president introduced a bill to pay debt commission together a year ago. they worked hard. they had some good ideas. the president used nine of his own death deficit reduction commission ideas in his own budget. here we are trying to clean up last year's mass. our goal is real clear. we are going to pay for the largest spending cuts we get any policy writers attached to them because we believe that cutting spending least to a better

environment for job creation. we are continuing to have conversations with our colleagues in the senate. i hope it will continue to go well. but the government is due to shut down tomorrow. we are going to be prepared to move forward with our funding bill that will find our troops and keep the government open for another week and cut $12 billion in spending. i think this is the responsible thing to do for the united states congress. i hope the senate will pass it and the president will sign it into law. >> obviously these are very serious times for this country. as we know, 14 trillion dollars in debt is no light matter -- $14 trillion in debt is no light matter. we care about people who are out there trying to find a job. we care about people who are trying to figure out how they get to the end of the not trying to pay the bills. that is why we are doing what

we are doing. we have to solve the debt crisis in this country. we have got to demonstrate some responsibility here in washington said this economy can get going again. as we all know, paul ryan is marking up the budget as we speak. we have put forward a plan that, in fact, does retire the debt over time and does so without raising taxes. we have seen nothing out of the president as far as a vision for where he was to take this country. in fact, in the senate, we know from the leader of their that he does not accept there is a fiscal crisis in this country. we believe that we have to act to do something to make sure that the american economy recovers. we have put forward plans. we understand america is broke. my question is, mr. president, are you going to help us fix it?

>> it has been said that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. we look at when the democrats were in the majority and never produced a budget. republicans came into power and produced one that to keep all the way to the end of the year. 46 days. after we first extended for the first two weeks, the president got engaged and set the vice president al. fees that one day and left for two weeks. now we are at another deadline. i think this election was a different election. this election was about change. it was more than just change. it was the cultural change of washington. they expect things to be fact based and actually solve problems. think for one minute or only

imagine what the future could be if the debt was taken away? what did you spend that interest money on? what did you invest in for america? we have imagined what it can be and we are going to fight for it. we asked people to do the job they are supposed to do. if the senate could have taken the last 46 days and pass something, we would be in a different position. we ask the senate to change their past behavior and changed their actions america can grow. >> there is not a single house republican that was to shut down the government. we had been doing everything we can to avoid it. just a numbers to prove it. 46 -- that is the number of days ago we passed hr-1. 0 -- that is the port the senate has done of the budget. $90,000 -- that is the debt

projected over the next 10 years. house republicans are committed to bringing our fiscal house in order. we have taken the steps. we passed a budget and of taking them back to the pre bailout, pre stimulus levels. we are committed to getting the fiscal house in order. we ask the senate to take the action necessary to allow us to move forward. >> american people in november spoke clearly. but what serious answers to serious problems the country faces. the republican majority that took over in january has presented this time again. it is time to get on with the big issues. we are going to make sure our troops are paid. we have to cut spending. that is what the american people said. they do not want these deficits passed on to the next generation. it is time for the senate to get serious so we can get this resolved and move on to the big issues. >> questions? >> can you give us a little bit

more information about the conversations -- ivy spoken with the senate majority leader today? >> the conversations are continuing. nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. >> people are saying it is more positive. can you describe what it is more positive. >> we have made some progress. >> is there enough progress that you can get this on the floor by friday? >> in the house, we have a three day layover policy so people can read the bill. it is pretty clear to most of you that once we reached the agreements it will take two or three days to put them all together. we believe it is important to move this troop funding bill that would keep the government funded for another week. >> [unintelligible] there are a number of people on the republican side the said

they will not report for another cr. there were 54 last time. the democrats said they will not help you. >> we will pass with republican votes. no doubt about it. who said we cannot vote for another cr? they have painted themselves into a corner. we have people today fighting for our liberty and our freedom. we do not want to pay them. we have one week where we are going to cut $12 billion. it is a fundamental bill that will pass with republican votes. if democrats do not want to join us, that is their choice. if the senate continues to not act, that is their choice. but we believe that america should move forward. >> if i could just add, republicans have no interest in

shutting down the government. shutting down the government is irresponsible and i think it will end up costing american taxpayers more money than we are already spending. i believe that all the members want to support our troops. we are going to do the responsible thing to more. >> if you have gotten halfway to what you want, why not make a deal that would divert a government shut down? >> it would be easy to just hold your cards and go home. that is not what the american people elected us to do. they elected us to cut spending because cutting spending will lead to a better environment for job creators to create jobs. we will fight for as many spending cuts as we can get. thank you, everybody.

>> now, more about the current budget debates. we will hear from minority whip steny warner -- steny hoyer. they will hear from mitch mcconnell. this is 10 minutes. >> while washington was immersed in the budget debate, the -- worst possible light. first, republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple america's ability to outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild its competitors. that spending plan would cut

billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, take 200,000 children out of head start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 states. infrastructure projects would provide american jobs. a consensus of nop partisan economists has found the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. and mark zandi, who advised john mccain when he was running for president on economics, moody analytics chief economist and advisor to senator mccain said it would cost almost 7 00,000 jobs. in addition to these skewed priorities, republicans are insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include

controversial social policy provisions that have little if anything to do with the deficit. even though in their own pledge to america promised, and i quote, to end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation. bills that should pass on their merits not as related to some extraneous issue. rather than compromise with president obama and the democrats in the senate and house, republicans are threatening once again to shut down government. as they did in 1995. now they tell us that they'll back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, one-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government opened. in other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week to week bill did. it also takes all cuts from

only a small slice of the budget. frankly, madam speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility. especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the secretary of defense himself has called the pentagon's culture of endless money. this partisan patch contradicts republicans' own promises to put everything on the table. defense spending included. listen to their own words as reported by the associated press on january 23, quote, the house's new majority leader, representative carke cantor of virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. but of course they haven't done that. "new york times" january 27 representative chris gibson, a tea party endorsed freshman republican and retired army colonel said, made it clear, that no part of the pentagon's

$550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in iraq and afghanistan was immune. he said this, this deficit that we have threatened our very way of life and everything needs to be on the table. however they have notdown that. congressman mike pence on january 7 said this, quote, if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense. we need a strong defense, i'm a supporter of a strong defense, but to take those dollars off the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our republican friends have made. those words are sounding very hollow, however, today while republicans breaking their word, madam speaker, because in my opinion they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending left untouched. and a divisive social policy

provision as well. which is what they said they would not do. what we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours now the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise, that's our job. my way or the high way is never going to get it done. finally, republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year, we'll have a lot to say about that in the days ahead. their budget ends medicare as we know it. seniors thought that they were going to protect medicare. well, their way of protecting it is ending it. it dismantles medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. we'll talk a while about that seniors. objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, across the country this morning, americans are wondering what's going on in washington this week. they want to know why it's taking so long to fund the government. americans want to know how we got to this point, and they

deserve an answer, so here goes. each year, the majority party in congress is responsible for coming up with a budget plan that explains how they're going to pay for all the things that government does. it's not just a good idea. it's the law. congress has been required to do it since 1974. well, last year, the democratic leaders in congress decided they didn't want to do it. they didn't want to have the - didn't want to have to publicly defend their bloated spending and the debt that it's creating. so republicans had to come up with a temporary spending bill to keep the government running in the absence of any alternatives and leadership from our friends on the other side. republicans even passed a bill in the house that would keep the government funded through the rest of the current fiscal year and which takes an important first step toward a smaller, more efficient government that helps improve the conditions for

prate sector job growth. this house bill would save us billions of dollars on our way to a conversation about trillions, and congressman ryan has done a service this week by setting the terms of the larger debate by outlining a plan that puts us back on a path to stability and prosperity. unfortunately, democrats have made a calculated decision that they didn't want to have either debate, so they have taken a pass on both. and frankly, it's hard not to be struck by the contrasting approaches to our nation's fiscal problems that we have seen here in washington this week. on the one hand, you've got a plan by congressman ryan that every serious person has described as both honest and courageous. on the other hand, you've got people like the new chairwoman of the democratic national committee and the previous speaker of the house dismissing that plan in the most cartoonish

language imaginable. while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan -- while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan an honest attempt to tackle our problems head on, ideologues on the left have seen a target to distort while offering no vision of their own to present a fiscal nightmare that we all know is approaching. and they still haven't come up with an alternative to the various republican proposals we have seen to keep the government up and running in the current fiscal year. they have just sort of sat on the sidelines, taking pot shots at everything republicans have proposed while rooting, rooting for a shutdown. that's why the republicans in the house have now proposed another bill this week that will fund the military for the rest of the year, to keep the government operating, and which gets us a little closeto the level of spending that even the senior senator from new york has called reasonable.

the fact that democrats are now rejecting this offer, which even members of their own leadership have described as reasonable, is all the evidence you need that democrats are more concerned about the politic of this debate than keeping the government running. so let's be clear about something this morning. throughout this entire debate, republicans have not only said that we would prefer a bipartisan agreement that funds the government and protects defense spending at a time when we have got american troops fighting in two wars, there is a republican plan on the table right now that would do just that. democrats can accept that proposal or they can reject it, but they can't blamenyone but themselves if a shutdown does occur because they have done nothing whatsoever to prevent it. so with the clock ticking, i would once again encourage our democratic friends to get on board with this proposal and to support the kind of spending cuts that the american people have asked for and that their

own leadership h there is something of what they are doing on the financial market on wall street firms. >> melissa lee on her career and influences and what she believes is herbal and reporting business and financial news. what is the rest of the interview sunday night at 8:00. >> this weekend, and book that the great coach president lincoln was wearing at the theatre the night he was assassinated. george shultz on working on the nixon white house.

the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. while washington was immersed in the budget debate, thehe taught briefly about federal spending and the possibility of a joke -- of a government shutdown. >> i ask congress to send me a budget that still invest in research, still invest in infrastructure, still invest in education -- investments that are critical for us to compete with any country in the world. that is what i ask for several months ago.

after weeks of negotiations, we have agreed to cut as much spending as the republicans in congress originally asked for. i have some democrats mad at me, but i said let's get passed last year's budget and focus on the future. we agreed to a compromise. somehow, we still do not have big deal. some folks are still trying to inject politics into what should be a simple debate about how to pay our bills. there are all sorts of issues in there. abortion, the environment, health care -- there are times to have those discussions, but that time is not now. right now we need to make sure that we pay our bills and that the government stays open.

if we do not reach common ground by saturday, the federal government shuts down. some of you may not be the sympathetic. you should eat -- here is the thing -- when government shuts down, in that maze that small business owner who is waiting to get a loan -- that business may not open. whoever he was planning to hire, suddenly, he may not have that job he is counting on. it may turn out that somebody who is trying to get a mortgage cannot have their paperwork processed by the fha and now the person who was going to sell the house, what they were counting on, they cannot get it. folks who were planning a vacation to yellowstone -- it turns out the national parks are suddenly closed. you are out of luck.

you may have to figure out if you get your money back for that resort you're going to stay at. these are things that affect ordinary families stay in and day out. it affects our economy right at the time when our economy is gaining momentum. we had the best jobs report we have had in a very long time this past friday. you know what? if companies do not like uncertainty. at they think we are having a shutdown of our government, that would halt momentum. all because of politics. i do not want to see washington politics get in the way of -- the least we can do is meet our responsibilities to produce a budget. that is not too much to ask for. that is what the american people expect from us. that is what they deserve. you want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games, realize it is not just my way or the highway. how many folks are married here? when is the last time you got your [unintelligible] that is not how it works.

all right in? he lifted his wife's had up. [laughter] the fact is, you have to make compromises. that is what we are -- the american family. democrats and republicans need to get together, work to their differences, keep the government running so we can focus on keeping this economy growing, a focus of things like great -- clean energy. that is our job. people want to see results. you deserve no less than that. these are challenging times for america. we have been through the worst recession since before i was born. a lot of folks are still hurting

out there. but if we come together and listen to each other, if we remember that we are one nation, that we are one people then i am confident that we will come out stronger than we were before. what makes me confident is seeing all of you and seeing what i am see all across america. people have drive, optimism. they are decent and do right by their families and do right by their communities. this is what has lifted us out of tough times before. this is what will carry america into the future. i thank you for the great work you are doing. with that, let me take some questions. i appreciate it. [applause] >> this weekend, a look at the greatcoat president was wearing at the evening here is assassinated. george shultz of marking in the nixon white house in the behind the scenes efforts on school to certification. hear from the sense -- hear from the descendants of slaves.