>> author george r.r. martin wrote, most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it. i worry that when it comes to medicare, that's too true for many in washington today. if medicare is just fine, as some claim, why the funding warning for the seventh straight year? if there is no problem that needs action now, then why have the assets in the trust fund shrunk by 15% from the projections made just five years

ago? if sincere concerns about medcare's condition are dismissed as alarmist rhetoric by some members of copping, why can't medicare pay its medical bills for seniors in just 13 short years? today no member of congress can honestly look a 52-year-old american in the eye and assure them that medicare will be there for them when they retire because the trustees report has just confirmed it. hat's not just fine. for those who continue to stick their heads in the sand where hope is the denial of reality, the 2014 report makes it abundantly clear that medicare's financial future is in trouble. americans all over the country and across generations are paying into a program that we as

a congress cannot promise they will receive benefits for. but if we simply face reality, we can make sure our citizens receive the medical care they deserve and have paid into the most. if you think a couple years of reduced health care spending within a recession solves the problem, do the math. the number of people in medicare doubled over the next 35 years, and it is going to double in size again. no one credible has proven that reduced health care spending will last. even the medicare atrustees didn't attempt to make that claim. they are not alone they are not alone. the independent medicare study

commission found that an independent heavy advisory board will cause medicare spending to sky rocket. the trustee's report and the alternative scenario reenforce the need for prompt attention to medicare's severe financial roblems. as we will hear from our witnesses today, the plore cuts the less w, the drastic these changes will be. my hope is that this will help both members -- to help members on both sides of the aisle to push toward a bipartisan common sense solution. we can't psh this away. medicare is going broke too quickly. the medicare board of trustees urges us to take prompt legislative action and recognize

that this year's report continues the need for timely and effective action to address medicare's remaining financial challenges. so if the trustees don't view he two added years of solvency as a significant repreeve, why should congress or the white house? our witnesses today will help us of her explain the extent medicare's difficulties as we d. we work to find a solution to this. >> president reischour.

it is good to see you here today . thank you for your service and being willing to sit on a commission like this. i believe it has been a couple , and i look forward to hearing your thoughts today. this committee has typically been scaring the public into thinking medicare will be bankrupt. every generation has been subjected to that since i've been in congress. it is not going to be here by the year x. quh i when i looked outside this morning when i got up, i can assure you the sky is not falling.

two additional years of sol conveniencey. projected medicare spending is down where it was before the passing of a.c.a. before a.c.a., we were projected spending would reach 11.4% of g.d.p.. i don't know. who can believe we know anything about 2082, but people sit around and make those kipeds of projections. this time the numbers are down. this is almost a 50% cut. the long-term 75-year deficit has been dropping from 2.88% in 2099 to 1.11% in 2013. that's a 72% decline. so you are seeing that things in the long term seem to be getting better. if you believe those pricks or guys who want them believe them i guess.

i am one of those a little dubious about who knows what will happen in 75 years. but the a.c.a. is also resulting in historically enclose health care spending rates. per capita medicare spending rate was only .4% in 2012. nationals less than one half of 1%. national expenditures grew only 3.9% in 2011. the third straight year of slowed growth. to remain pected low. these are a result of the initiatives within within the insurers have gotten the message loud and clear that they need reform to participate in

the health care in the future. i would like to remind them that repealing the a.c.a., they tried it 37 times. their singular goal for the last three years, would actually put the program on a worse financial footing. the latest estimates of the actuary say it would shorten sol conveniencey for eight years. it would eliminate benefits, . ch as free preventative care so rather than using this year's trustee report to invoke panic -- i ar, let's use it challenge my colleagues to think igger. out fug -- let's figure

how to make the program work. no program designed in 1946 could possibly be adequate for today. there is just no way you can do that. i reject calls to slash the program to save it. it wasn't made too big at the beginning. let's give the a.c.a. and similar systems a chance to reform. the -- after all, the sky isn't going to fall tomorrow either. but the committee can decide how we actually implement the efficiency in the a.c.a. because it will affect medicare as it affects everything. the thrifferri of health care is changing in part by the fact that we have actually put a.c.a. in motion. that made people start to think about it. i yield back the balance of my time.

>> you will hear from few witnesses both public trustees on social security medicare boards of trustees. thank you both for being here today. i thank you both for your testimony. you will both be heard from for five minutes for the purpose of providing oral arguments. >> thank you, pll chairman. it is always a great honor to appear before you. i'm going to present my oral remarks and leave it to his testimony to discuss some of the recent evolution of the longer term outlook. the first point i would make is that medicare funs are very complex. the program has two trust funds.

that's a very important piece of data. that is just one piece of a larger mosaic medicare programs financed. supplement has a ri program that is constructed so it can go insolvent by design. so we have financing strains on that side of medicare. ey are not manifested in depatia -- in fact, we are showing rising pressure. under current projections, in 2013 we are expecting 3.6% of our gross domestic product in medicare. we are projecting going forward medicare costs will rise faster than our projected economic output to the point by mid 205

we expect total program costs to be 25% of g.d.p. thereafter we're expecting influences relative to our output, but 6.5% of g.d.p. by 2037. the primary driver is the demographics. we have a lot of baby boomers coming on. hysteric cost inflation also plays an important role. in the near term demographics are the larger one. under current projections as has been noted, we are projected the hospital trust fund will be decompleted two years later than we last predicted. my colleague will explain some of the reasons for the reen recent changes in the outlook. medicare is really on a knife's edge. we are starting with less than

one year of the bifts payments in the hospital trust fund. so our 2026 projection depends to a great degree on whether tax incomes and outgoing medicare expenditures will be coming in over the next 10 years. if our long-term projections are off, and they are suct to great uncertainty, that number could move in either direction. the last point i will make is that for various reasons total costs are likely to be higher than shown in the reports. the most likely are the position payments. we are obliged to project what could happen under legitimate current law. historically congress has fended to override these. if we assume that pattern continues, then costs will be higher than what with are projected. a little more unanimous 10% higher over the long foremen. -- over the long term.

there are some who suggest are there other reasons? i'll try to explain this without getting too far into the weeds. basically our projecks for medicare cost growth are highly dependent on our projections in the broader economy which determines the input cost that providers in medicare. as health care takes up a larger part of our economy, the pressure in the direction of further increases is lessened a little bit. if that weren't the case, ultimately we would get to the point where our economy served

othing other than health care. assume a certain level of operation. squ are

>> legislation will be need hospital funding. >> thank you. why chairman brady, ranking members, and other members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. my colleague has already covered the trustees basic operations of edicare.

what i was going to talk about are the implications the overall health care spending could have on the future financial situation. as you know, both medicare for beneficiary spending and private sector per capita spending has slowed considerably over the last two years. the latest trustee's reports projects the year in which the fund will be depleted has been pushed out from 2024 to 2024. this is good news, but it doesn't suggest that the cost curve has been bent in a sustainable way and we can relax. even though i count myself among those who think much of the spending slowdown is structural in nature, i believe that the fundamental financial challenge, most remain unchanged from where ago. ere a year

there is an economic weakness in the last 10 years that has had an affect on medicare beneficiaries who experienced a sharp decline in the value of their raise raise. and 401-k's. in addition, they went two years without social security. a few major new technologies have been introduced in the past few years.

whether the slowdown will continue is to be seen. prime reasons is of course the possibilities that breakthroughs n genomic science, nano-technology, stem cell research and other technologies could lead to an explosion of new and expensive interventions. the increased market power that providers may gain when they provide high-quality care as was envisionsed on their health care

reform is also a continued threat to the continuation of the spending slowdown. some asked if this has relevant for medicare, because medicare does not negotiate with providers when it sets other cost related presidential youth fitness program ters. notwithstanding these differences, medicare cannot set its own course with respect to future growth indiana of what is happening in the rest of the health care marketplace. this has been indicated clearly in the sustainable growth rate formula. the report notes that it is a virtual certainty that this reduction will be overridden. this judgment is based on experience since 2003 in appreciation of the disruptive

consequences and the sudden slarp reduction we have on medicare payment rates leaving them far below those of other ayers. in short, what happens in the private marketplace does con train what medicare can do to slow spending. for several years they have expressed caution of the long-term sustainability of those required by the affordable care act. the most important of these are the productivity related reductions in annual payment updates for medicare providers and the ipad. while they believe these measures or tern tiffer ones can be sustained over the long run, they judge this will occur only if transitions to significantly more sufficient models of care. such things will not happen as

long as private care continues to pursue cost savings aggressively and providers respond to the incentives to moderate growth. in short, medicare's ability to moderate growth stands on efforts to slow spending and vice-versa. >> thank you. you and six other trustees predict that in 13 years medicare will only be able to pay 87% of its benefits going forward. cuts that severe, what impact does it have on its ability to to de med -- medical care seniors? >> if it were allowed to play out without action, the amount of benefits we would pay would be 87% of what is current

kerntly scheduled. so basically under much interpretation of the law, medicare would have to wait to send out payments. this would mean in many cases a denial of care of roughly 13% in that year. >> you are saying in your testimony that you project lengthy higher cost rates going forward. so in effect we ought not count on the low growth rates of the ast two years? you make the point that or finances are on ice edge. the seven trustees said we need to take prompt, timely legislative action. so is that prompt and timely meaning sometime in the next 10 years? sometime in the next five years?

do we need to act sooner than that to address these issues? >> well, certainly the sooner there is action the more pruned it would be for a number of reasons. one is the sooner you act, the more people you can involve in solutions. you can involve more cohorts. you can have a gentler impact. you can spread it out over a longer period of time. the other point i would make is that you have to remember the main factors driving are democrat deprasks. it is hard to change on a dime with demographics. there are changes in eligibility and they want to phase that in. >> a lot more people coming into the program, higher costs continuing to drive the financial problem. >> that's right. >> how soon should we act aggressively? how much longer do we delay taking meaningful steps?

>> the difficulty, of course, is lawmakers have to make a judgment as to what is the best time to act from a number of perspectives. i can tell you from a numerical perspective, the more immediate the action, the better. >> now. from a purely technical ubstantive perspective, yes. >> your testimony sounds like everything is just fine in medicare. is your thinking, don't worry, be happy? >> well, i think i said early on in my oral remarks and my written remarks that while i am optimistic about the spending slowdown, i think we still face a very significant problem. like my colleague, i think the sooner we adopt measures to

address the long-term situation, the better. i'm not one to spend sleepless nights worrying about 2087, but, you know, looking out at the next two decades, you know, thrg s cause for concern. like dr. blahaus, i believe the sooner decisions are made, the more gradually they can be implemented and more political iability they will have. >> would your recommendations as far as taking meaningful steps to congress be to do this, this session? to start those solutions or at least the steps of them now continuing to delay?

we have adopted various measures in the affordable care act. we will be in i think a much better position to adopt the ext generation of changes. informed by what we learn about how well some of these demonstrations are doing. >> you spent a lot of time in your discussion talking about the benefits of the affordable care act. i didn't see that. what section of the trustees report was that in? >> i said i was going to stray a bit from the trustees report because -- >> what is your personal view looking ahead on these issues? >> it comes from the belief that

he success of the efforts to hold down medicare costs depends critically on what's happening in the rest of our health economy. that medicare can't go off. >> no, i heard the testimony loud and clear. hospitalurate that the trust fund this year started out only having enough to cover 81% of liabilities? is that ackrasssfl in your trustees report. >> the trust fund's assets 2013's to 81 pfer of expected expenditures. so if there were no money coming into the trust fund -- >> is that expected to be better or decline? >> it is expected to decline ver the next 30 years.

>> these hearings are basically educational for the public. let me try to get clear in people's minds, when you are talking about a deficit, you are talking about a deficit in part a. that's what you are talking about. part b, that is other incidental laboratories and so forth, they are paid in full and part d will be paid in full. those two programs are not what we are worried about. there will be 87% of what's left there. good we do nothing. but what we have done, we put in place the a.c.a.

so we now are putting in cost control mechanisms in the a.c.a. that are affecting this or seem o be affecting it. i look at the medical program. it is encouraging bids are coming in lower on medicare advantage. it says to me a.c.a. is already having an affect. is that a fair estimate? >> the trustees report says that the initial estimates of the impact of the affordable care ct on medicare advantage plans were probably a bit high, a bit , and terms of reductions

that behaviors in these plans and benefits that have occurred over the last 10 years have led to acktwareys actuaries believe the dividends will be larger than they were in 2010. we have also seen folks signing up higher than what was predicted at the time the affordable health care act was enacted. >> the initial medicare advantage reduction was a little rocky, as i remember it. >> well, let's start with recalling that medicare advantage in a sense cost the government more money than fee for service for 2010 because we were over-paying knees plans relative to the costs that the individuals who participated in the plans would have cost had they been in fee for service medicine.

so the an forwardable care act took a number of steps to try to reduce its situation, and those have been quite successful. >> so, to sum that up, what you have just said is that the congress took actions that have reduced costs already and it looks like there is no reason to believe that that won't continue out into the future if people more people get into managed , andand medicare advantage the bids keep coming down, we will save money in the future. >> but the bids would have to come well below what the costs would be in fee for service, which means they would become ever more fisht, which i think they are on the way to doing. but to go back to my original

testimony, these are plans that by and large are run by run medicaret also trustee act. and we want to push all aspects much that. >> it seems to me some of the things are you putting in place and have been put in place both in the a.c.a. and in medicare advantage in the past, are, you can't expect them to go in and -- that is like trying to take a super tanker and turn it on a dime. it takes 20 miles to penned at 4 degrees in its direction. that's really what we're doing here with a big program. is it that your view that we're getting the benefits from the a. scrrks a.?

>> we are and we will get more. i think you are right when you say this involves a big percentage of our economy. that's why the chairman's suggestion about making decision s sooner rather than later and giving instructions on what way to go is very timely. reischau >> i would be glad to help with the cost control. >> we will recess until five minutes after the vote series con cludes. we will reconvene at that point. mr. johnson? >> the trustee's report estimate is that medicare hospital insurance trust fund is expected to spend more money paying claims this year than it will from the affordable care act. is that correct? >> that's correct.

>> how long has this been the case? >> 202008 is when expenditures egan to exceed tax income. >> are you aware of any program that is financially sustainable if it spends more money money than it has? or is that a formula for brutchtsy. >> we can't continue with that, but over the next decade we are projecting almost an exam simtri between income and out-go. in is a brief blip when we are projecting tax nms to one year to exceed spend tours. after that, the lines pull apart. expenditures exceed increases. >> i don't know how you can come up with that decision. you say the current medicare cost projections show there will

be increased projection needed prop up the federal trust fund. won't this further pressure the federal budget in age paying down the debt? 6 >> yes, it does mean increased pressure on the budget. one is higher taxes, you have to have higher indebtedness and reduced expenditure in the federal government. > which of those do you favor? >> well, this is my personal view. i'm not excited about the idea of continually riding debt. we have to do something to get the rising costs of medicare under control. >> maybe can you pay for the whole cost out of your salary.

>> i would not want to do that. will say aobama care act reduce costs. you specifically mentioned cost con shiss -- conscious products. many states have released numbers showing premiums will increase 10%, some 20% to 50%, some as much as 150%. your assumption does not sound right to me. how does this help us control costs in medicare which are facing the problems right now? is >> first of all, those numbers you suggested i don't think account for the differences in generosity that i think will be offered now and the plans offered in the exchange. del are minimum benefit requirements for plans offered in exchange. what i really am referring to is the situation that we will have

, which exchange starts is the individual consumer having a choice which plan he or he decides to sign up for. as you know, there will be different plans demonstrating different fractions of the quite n public which are comfortable with plans that are not as generous as those that we e offered in the usual employer-employee situation. to start a conversation that heretofore hasn't happened because employers have offered a range of plans, and those that do usually make their contributions to those different flavors of plans, such that

prove market responses by their employees are not exhibited. >> well, my impression is, people don't want to spend more money on health care than they already are, and that's what i'm afraid is going to happen. >> no, i think you're right. >> we have 15 votes. each of them are two minutes wrong. this subcommittee will reconvene promptly five minutes after the last vote series. grab a cup of coffee but be back here ready to work. >> thank you for being patient

during the vote series. we have another one coming up. welcome mr. to pascrell. >> dr. reishaur, do you think medicare can hit the spending in the trustee's eport under current law? do you think we will hit those spending projecks that you mentioned? >> well, one aspect of current law is the assumption that the s.g.r. will be implemented and -- in that, i don't think

we will hit projections. the impact that has on medicare's overall spending is about 2%. but extracting from that, you know, i think it is perfectly applausible that over the course 10 and 20 years that we will hit the projected numbers that are in the report. but as i said in my testimony, this presumes that there would be a significant transformation of our delivery system. not just the delivery system from medicare's perspective but from the private sector as well.

i think we are there because of the pressure that has been exerted on health care providers. >> correct me, but the alternative scenario projects 9.8% of g.d.p. ompared to a projection of 11.4% prior to health care reform. is that accurate? >> yes, that is. if you look at the -- >> that's pretty important, isn't it? >> if you look at the 2009 report, the 75-year projections were considerably more

pessimistic than either the current law projecks in 2013 report or the alternative scenario contained in that report. some of that is, of course, the affordable care act, but that's been taken out by the lternative scenario. some of it is the different projections of the economy and inflation. some of it is the slowdown in spending that you have experienced. so your basic observation is correct. >> you would agree with me? >> yes. >> now, we have slowed down the rising cost of drugs. yes or no? prescription drugs? >> we have slowed down prescription drug costs in large measure because there has been a very sun substantial shift from

brand drugs to generic drugs, much more than experts had predicted a few years ago. in part because of pressure that p.v.m.'s have exerlted -- exerted through the medicare part d program. >> now the projects that we're into right now in terms of medicare and for health care for that matter, are designed to moderate costs. if we don't touch that, we cannot raise enough money to do. so we continue to go on the past process and we're out of business mple let me add this. i don't want to be morbid about it, and correct me, please, there is no real hope of a real reduction of the cost of health

care, and indeed medicare, unless folks take control of eir health choices and learn to read their bills. i have looked at the reports from both sides of the aisle. either are side of aisle is stressing those choices. i would say both sides of the aisle are going in the wrong direction. that the major emphasis, if i had to answer the question, mr. chairman, and maybe a short answer if i could. >> you have plenty of time, mr. pascrell. i will ask the witnesses just to respond. the con including i am making is this -- for force if we can't can't raise we

nough money, then we have to talk with the person in charge of his own health. i fear, mr. chairman with all your good intentions and the great intentions of our ranking member, that we're not going to team with knees costs and team with the lowering of that cost unless we deal with those two thing. the bill that you get and faking . ntrol of your own health that is not in the books here. >> thank you, mr. pascrell. mr. rice? >> i would call your atension to hr-2300 that actually responds to those things. i would love to silt down with you. i want to thank our witnesses and the contributions you have made to try to move us in the

right direction. am struck by your testimony with much of the graphics. you site the demographics are driving the chedge. we have 10,000 folks reaching retirement age and we will continue to do thoo until we get the 78 million folks of my generation, the boomers, through this process : that's a huge demick economic challenge. my sense is things are not as rosie as they were. would you comment on that? >> sure. with respect to the observation that costs may be higher than currently projected, we are assuming in our projecks an

almost 25% reduction in physician patients compared to last year. there is very little historic basis to assume that is going to happen. so if you continue drugs would continue to be overwritten, costs would be, at least to that extent, higher than expected. prior to that, the message i would offer is we still have work to do to sustain the financials of medicare. there has been a lot written and said about the recent slowdown f cost growth. obviously we are hopeful that will continue, and we are hopeful that will render the current cost containment measures we have in current law. i think it is ok to assume things will turn out better -- > and possibly, not as much.

sferml >> through the ippedent payment advisory board, something many of us oppose vehemently because we believe it removes those choices for bashese, families, and doctors for the kind of care they desire. the independent payment advisory board will come into play when they have to make a decision about reducing compensation recipients ent to within five years. >> basically it comes into play whenever full expenditures exceed a target rate of growth. basically g.d.p. plus 1%. now that renders it a little different to run out some of our

illustrative alternative scenarios. for example, if you assume that the cost containment provigs nt affordable care act were over-ridden, unless the -- they would have to come in to fill in the gap. so there is a strofpk interplay between the two. >>;-ñ

it also creates a situation where we are similar to many of the agencies that we work with shoulder to shoulder. will leave with this. i do not especially enjoy getting into salaries, because there are a good many people who think that congress persons are slightly overpaid. i yield back the balance of my time. fornd recognize mr. garrett five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for holding this very important hearing. i sat through for the last couple of hours we have been here on this and listened to your answers. and the takeaway i have gotten so far is that we have an agency that lacks oversight and lacks accountability, and from your -- can pinpoint who the

public and go to if they are looking for accountability. we discussed the issue of appropriations. as far i doesn't -- as far as i understand it, there is no accountability to the senate appropriations. there is no accountability on your budget to house appropriators because it does not go through house appropriations. your funding comes to it through the federal reserve and by your testimony today, as i understand reserve is not subject to review as far as the funds coming there as well. and in addition, there is something called the consumer financial civil nop fund, which cfpb may use -- penalty fund, which cfpb can use to compensate victims brought not only by federal agencies but state attorney generals and even private plaintiffs. so, there is no oversight outside of this entity as well. were any of those facts incorrect as i stated as far as funding?

the act itself anticipated -- >> i understand. but are any of those facts incorrect as far as oversight of your spending? , congressman, we are proceeding the way the act establishing good. >> are any of my facts incorrect? >> with respect to the funding and the transfer, they represent the fax as dictated in dodd- frank. >> i understand it is not your doing as far as creation of the law. you are just implementing what congress in his wisdom or lack ironic did, but it seems in this day and age when we are trying to rein in runaway spending that we -- that we would create an agency that basically would have no constraints on it by any elected body whatsoever or by the federal reserve, which is not an elected body and then to try, as the other side has done, say, can't we equate this to other independent agencies.

this agency is unique in the fact is it does not have a commission like the sec does, which has funding coming from a different stream. this is a unique agency unlike any other in the federal reserve able to spend upwards of half $1 billion without any public accountability whatsoever. ifs may be arguably good they were doing an extremely high amount of benefit to the public. the number that you gave us as far as civil penalties that you 400 25covered was million. how does that compare to what the track record was when we had ots doing the, and prior to you? any answer? -- wouldn'te thing it be one thing you would want to take a look at to see how you compared to other entities prior to your existence to see if you are doing in a cost-efficient manner? >> we have not done that, to my

knowledge. >> let me give you an answer. it was on an upward trajectory prior to the creation of this entity. 318,nt from 151, 170, 220, and that was two years ago so doing is onion ui the same trajectory all the other agencies were doing before hand and they were doing it without the cost we are doing right now of over $500 million coming through the federal reserve, which basically means coming from the taxpayers because the money -- if it did not go there it would come back to the general fund. im not not sure we are getting anything additional benefit from the cfpb, but it is coming out of the cost of lack of accountability and also as a cost of lack of efficiency at the same time. can you disagree with that point? have thessman, we do

accountability that was established in dodd-frank. >> let me understand that then. who is it you are actually accountable to directly? the act weman, in have a unique situation where the general accountability office, an arm of congress, reviews our financial statements. we have a unique situation with an independent audit mandated in the act to go over our budget and other items that aredeemed -- >> if they find something wrong can they direct you to change the way you operate? ofcongressman, we take all the audit findings -- >> yes or no, can they direct you to change operations if they find something wrong? >> if they were to find a finding that would represent significant -- >> ok, if the chairman would allow, can they direct you to jake -- to take action or is it just you decide whether you want to follow that direction or not? >> congressman, when auditors

find -- >> a yes or no, can they direct you to take action? >> if they find items of deficiency -- >> and they direct you to take action? a simple question. can they direct you? >> they can recommend. >> they cannot direct you. so there is no one who can direct you to take action when they find failure through inefficiency or otherwise in audit or stream of funding? congressman, when the government accountability office -- >> yes or no, can anyone outside of your own agency direct you to take any action? would makeif the gao recommendations -- >> and the gao -- >> they can make recommendations -- >> and they direct you? >> i don't think so. >> with that, we will now beatty for five

minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member, and thank you for the witness. i certainly would be remiss being from ohio if i did not welcome you, but join my colleagues saying i am somewhat disappointed that direct or cordray could not be here. i had the opportunity to work with them as a cochair on financial literacy. i do have a financial literacy question, but since we have been asking you so many questions about your budget and finance, i will come back to that. one of the things i have been most impressed with is what you have been doing in the area of financial literacy and also some of your productive and successful things that you have listed. if we look at the total student passedbt, it recently the $1 trillion mark. it is the second most type of comedic -- consumer debt after

home mortgages. 11% of all student loans are seriously delinquent compared to just six percent if we go back to 2003. so, saddled with immense food and loan debt, young people are struggling to begin their professional lives. -- immense student loan debt, young people are struggling. can you explain how cfpb has approached this critical issue and how schools like the financial aid shopping she can help young folks? >> congresswoman, i would refer 2 -- in our office who handles much of our student loan initiatives. i would say that it is one of the areas that we are very proud of in terms of the activity that we have proceeded with. but he is much more expert and much more adept at answering those questions. i would be happy to take it back to him. >> thank you, now i go back to some of the financial questions.

republicans in both the house and senate have argued that cfpb should be subject to the appropriations process to ensure greater accountability for the agency. thatis despite the fact congress has consistently provided for independent funding for other bank regulators. in your own personal view, can you woulde how likely explain why congress gave all the bank regulators independent funding and to what extent is it important for a regulator with responsibility for examining large and complex financial institutions to have stable and consistent funding? >> congresswoman, i think your last point is the point, that having that stable funding allows us to focus on mission, it allows us to play an equally important role with those other entities that have other sources us to beg, that allows

a significant actor in the market and in the areas of consumer protection that we are tasked with doing by congress. -- we've heard a lot of questions about the salaries, the size of the budget. i've also read that you have a smaller budget. any knowledge of people not being transparent with salaries or any misappropriations within your own? i am sure in an office this size, there are internal checkpoints -- if you spent the money, what it was supposed to be spent. i have not heard of any glaring things where you have been challenged or any internal problems financially. about how youo us

feel about how you have been spending the dollars? >> congresswoman, yes. i would report to -- to the gao's most recent audit. cleanly were we given a audit opinion by gao, but we also did not receive a management letter from gao, which is typically provided to entities when there are matters for consideration that management should take up in the opinion and give them the review of gao. so, not only did we get a clean audit opinion, but we did not have management letter. i think it speaks volumes to our internal controls and review of finances and manage -- manner we are spending our funds. >> has it been consistent over the past three years? i am just looking at something and a rating from the gao. it talked out of 19 out of 24 major agencies where we do have some of the accountability and those agencies that you don't have. and the gao is saying that they

could not render clean opinions on their statements. actress woman, having a clean opinion is a very important for us. after three years in a row it is a testament of how we are operating. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. we now recognize mr. houck written from illinois. >> thank you mr. agostini for being here. i know you are the only witness. either other employees from cfpb here as well today and am wondering if they could raise their hand of their other employees? just kind of the row behind you? the question i would have is, i know there has been reporting recently of loss of employees, especially high-level employees, management level employees. that could be concerning for a lot of reasons, but i think it is important for us to discuss that for a couple of minutes.

dozens of senior officials have left the agency, including the , bartf staff, the coo schapiro, leslie parrish, len kennedy, benjamin olson, many others i think as well. in interviews with "american banker" i note very sufficient offer different reasons for a flood of departure but many sided cultural clashes between the new agency and the regulators where they used to work. they also reported to aggressive person would -- recruiting in the private market and the turnover after intense few years. i wanted to talk about kind of the other side that is concerning to me. small toeeting with medium-sized banks in the midwest area and talking to them and some of their frustrations. the biggest station they had is uncertainty and really not

knowing the regulations they will have to comply with. one of the bankers had a line that struck me and i think it ties into the factor of the concern we have about a loss of senior staff or people with institutional knowledge there as well. this banker said -- i have been in banking for 30 years, i understand how to run a bank, my bank is small and has never been a threat to financial viability of the nation but now i have regulators coming in telling me how to run my bank. a lot of these regulators were playing hakki sack on the quad two years ago and now they are in my bank telling me how to run my bank. something is wrong. i think that has increased looking at the huge turnover. management clearly should accept some responsibility or at least a share of the blame for recent large exodus of senior cfpb staff over the recent months. when you agree, wouldn't there

be some questioning there? congressman, i believe many of those people have left for a variety of reasons. representing either new opportunities, a desire to do something different . thet firstwo-plus years in the bureau has been very intense in standing up the federal agency, and i think that many folks, it was time to do something different. range ofhere is just a reasons -- >> i understand that. i understand people make decisions. but there seems to be more than random departures but there seems to be a pattern that i think it would be wise for you all to address. that, when new employees saying they are not receiving proper training to be their job and yet our banks, my small and medium-sized banks especially just west of chicago are dealing with the consequences of new people who are regulators who are saying

themselves they have not received adequate training to do this, and yet they have significant authority. this is a problem, and i think we have to address it. another problem i think we have to address and many others have andussed it is, this place other departments -- so, congress and washington really was set up by our founders to have checks and balances. i would say most places have those check and balances. the one that doesn't have checks and balances right now is cfpb. it seems completely unaccountable. that is a very real concern that i've got. andeven as i say small medium-sized banks who feel like they have had adverse decisions or regulation or callous -- there islaced on them, no place for them to go to have a check on that. was this proper? if the person have the training to make a decision? how can we go back to question that? i think we do have to clear this up. it is a real problem, on top of the fact that when people are

saying to themselves that they do not have adequate training to do the job that they were given to do, a lot of senior management has been leading, and yet the consequences falling back on small and medium-sized banks are real. they are feeling it. they are being crushed by this. of secondsst couple i have -- i know that we also have some real questions about the number of contributions. cfpb is opposed to be an independent agency but 95 % of the employees contributed to residential race in the last cycle, contributed to president obama. given the irs candle such a politically unbalanced organization is at risk for acting with some political biases as the irs, potentially exercising its power or authority to abuse. my time is expired but i think they are important questions. an independent agency that does not have anything to keep him in check and balance. important questions. we will not enter into a second round of questions. the chair will now recognize mr.

5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to move back to our salary conversation. horse,beat a dead but i believe the last salary of a list we have from cfpb was from late last summer. would you provide the committee and updated salary breakdown from the cfpb? we would doan, yes, that. >> wonderful. we had a conversation earlier about comparing the cfpb pay scale to that of the federal reserve. at the cfpb pay scale as it relates to the gs pay scale and the gs scale is the one the dod uses, fbi, executive branch. would you have any at section two that cfpb moving to the gs

gal that most other government entities are on? congressman, if congress deems they wish to change our which scale so the act currently speaks to comparability with the federal or modified,tered we would, of course, follow the law set forth. >> wonderful. i dropped a bill to that effect, so maybe we will see how much support we get from the cfpb. i think it was yesterday we dropped it. the issue ofove to much was spent on the renovations of the office of thrift supervision building you are in right now. i think you indicated it was $15 inlion in 2012, 95 million 2013 for a total of 110 million so far in dollars budgeted for the renovation of the building. is that correct? actually, it is 95 million.

we changed the number. originally it was 15 million and then 40 million to a total of 55 million and it has been changed to 95 million. >> do you anticipate anymore budgeting necessary for 2013 or will 95 million do the job? >> we are in the early stages of estimating the cost of renovating the building that is 30 years old and needs major improvements -- 11 a there's, hvac. we are working with the general services administration. >> are you aware we have $17 trillion in national debt? >> yes. >> and the ots building was built in the 1970s, right? am i believe that is correct. >> you may be surprised to learn the rayburn building that we sit today has not had a major renovation and was built in 1965. on top of that, the building right across the street, the long worth the building was built in 1933 and hasn't had a major renovation since 1933.

but for the cfpb, a building that is nowhere than the one we sit in today, deserves a $95 million renovation to the tune $90,000 for every single employee there? how do you justify that when we all $17 trillion in debt? >> congressman, we have floors at 1700 g street we cannot run telephone lines, electrical lines, computer lines because when the building was built it was not anticipated they would use those things. we actually have parts of at least two floors that cannot be occupied in a standard office configuration. $90,000 per employee, $17 trillion in debt. to how muchve on -- we are spending on the storage of data collection. how much do you budget for the storage of data collection. congressman, what we budget

is embedded in what we purchase and service from treasury currently for purposes of running our network infrastructure. bean ask that that number broken out and given to you. i don't have that number in front of me currently. are you -- >> are you setting money aside to build your own storage network or are you using another agencies storage network? you are grabbing a lot of american financial data. are you storing it internally in another agency or are you paying someone off site to store the data? congressman, we are doing a couple of things. we are currently utilizing another federal agency, treasury , to provide us with network services. we are in the process of moving off of that network so that we can run our own network and not be dependent on another federal agency. we are also purchasing services and information from private entities as well, and part of

that is storage in our network. >> if you would break down -- i want to be very clear, how you are spending to store data. whether it is internally, another agency, or off-site. give me that number. is also how much the bureau spending to secure that data. and i yield back my time. it is expired. >> we will now recognize ms. beatty for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member, and again, to our witness. thank you. i've got a great appreciation for your answers to some of these very technical questions. of i took the liberty looking at the table of organization to see where you would fall within it. probably another reason for the questions -- would be a good reason to have our director there. taking nothing away from you.

i think you are doing a fine job. but he gives me pause when i hear people asking some of the questions that typically i think the director would be more appropriate. i want you to relax good you are doing a great job. you are not the director. and he should be here. that, let me ask you this question. when i hear a lot of the questions that are talking about the funding and the finances and then i looked at the outcome of what you have done, the number of consumers that have been affected, the number of things that you have been doing with those dollars, then my question are --ack to you, if you working with any of the other federal regulators like attorney

general's office or state anylators to avoid duplication efforts? that is the first part of the question. >> congressman -- congresswoman, we are constantly working with all of the agencies that have a role to play. in some cases, it may be justice, and in some cases, it may be some of the other regulatory agencies. i believe there was a recent gao that wen duplication are looking at very carefully to be sure that we are not duplicating. but i think it is the case that we work closely, we try not to duplicate, and we do that on a range of areas am a from purchasing services from other edible agencies so as not to create -- federal agencies was not create -- also the civil monetary penalty fund with other agencies to make sure their comments and concerns. me go back to the

question i started back in the beginning, because unlike the fdic or the federal reserve -- and certainly we heard this, that your budget is statutorily ped, and it is much smaller than the other budgets. but yet when we look at -- i am going to call it, cost savings, what you have done in 2012, i was very pleased when i was able to read that despite your limitations, small a budget into what those13, that limitations, however, 6 million consumers are receiving refunds because of your 2012 enforcement actions. and that you have also handled the more than 150,000 consumer complaints since you opened. in of which, i think, is part why you are there, to be able to serve consumers.

how will one of your core if your be affected budget was to be severely capped in light of maybe you did a little renovation, so you could be able to use i.t. and be able to communicate and probably increase those 150,000 consumer complaints. how would this affect the consumers? thatngers woman, i believe change is in out -- congresswoman, i believe the changes in our funding that would lower the funding would have the effect that we would have to go back and rethink how we deliver the value we feel we have been able to deliver to the american consumer. i can't tell you what it will look like today, but we will have to go back and take a look at that. >> we also -- you also have been hit hard with people, whether they resigned or left.

can you also, in my seconds left, tell me that if you hired ,eople to fulfill the vacancies maybe even experience that would help you in this field? or is it just these people left and we don't have anyone there? have a veryoman, we deep bench. we have a very strong set of fields throughout the agency. and i think it is the case that for all of those positions, as we we create to replace them, their individuals able to step in and act and capacities in such a seamless manner that we are still focused and can still deliver on our mission. >> thank you. >> i will now recognize myself for five minutes. cfpb's annualhe employee survey, only 35.6% of employees agree or strongly agree that the cfpb takes steps to deal with a poor performer

who cannot or will not improve. therefore, 64.4% are not cfpb thatat the managers will deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve. is this of concern? are still inan, we new agency. we are still getting, if you will, our legs. there are areas where i think we can show some improvement. it is one of the reasons why we do the surveys. and that is an area we will be working on and have started working on in terms of training for managers. we are about to engage in a mandatory training for all of our managers using the resources opm --h opn --

>> that goes to my next question. i understand the claim that cfpb and vest and world-class training. but the survey also asked employees how satisfied are you with the training you received for your present job. employees of your agree that the training they received was sufficient. a failure to train employees reflects for management, does it not? chairman, a fan, i would say that at the time of the survey, we were -- >> when was the survey? ori believe it was spring early summer of 2012. >> ok. area year later, you telling me you are just getting around in the idea of training some people's sense 38 with eight percent are satisfied with 38.8% are satisfied

with a tiny bit received. it doesn't reflect poor management? >> i do not think it reflects poor management. >> doesn't reflect good management? >> what it reflects is we are learning how to be a federal agency. >> how long has your agency existed? >> i believed a little over two one half years. >> ok, all right. you asked this survey question about 20 months in to your agency's creation and a year later you are still talking about getting around to implementing some of the things he found in your own survey. month, the cfpb employees voted to join the national treasury employees union. any understanding that we could have from the hill? doesn't this show troubles in the agencies -- doesn't this show troubles in the agency did to set up -- their satisfaction with training and managers will not deal with poor performers

who will not or cannot improve? establish the vote to a union simply demonstrates that our employees have exercised their right to be represented. >> and why do people institute unions? because things are going great at their agency or because they've got a grave concerns that are not being addressed? >> mr. chairman, i cannot speak to the motivation. "politico"eference a article from may 15 of this year. regarding the national treasury employees union -- the cfpb employees agreeing to do this. driven in large part by news that many employees in washington would be forced to give up private offices while the bureau renovates its headquarters, according to several people familiar with the situation. staffers were "absolutely livid" about their current office space.

with a very, very thin walls. the understand that to be the case? have anhairman, i office with very thin walls. there are only two private offices in my area that seats 32 people. we get along well and do well. >> i understand your personal -- do you have your full staff here? ok. it is not often we see folks come before the committee ceos that well-heeled have a panoply of individuals while testifying, that is why we have some members who have been interested about that. unionizing is not, as you understand it, a beef with the office space? >> mr. chairman, i cannot speak to the motivation. >> the point is, a year after the survey is taken, you are still perhaps trying to get around to implementing some of

the necessary reforms. what we have a challenge with is trying -- getting the transparency so we can hold you accountable, as we hold all the other regulatory agencies accountable. and as the fan -- as the founding fathers intended, with checks and balances. mr. that we will go to cleaver for five minutes. >> thank you. look, we have different opinions on the cfpb, and that is the way our system works. and i don't think our side has unique position on always being right, nor the o ther side. gos is the process we through and i respected, and and i respect people who have a different view. my wife is a psychologist.

remiss if i did not follow up on the issue that was hiringearlier about psychologists to work with the bureau in terms of trying to detect what people are interested in. we have 300 million americans, and i am not sure we have funded you enough money to do a lot of focus groups them to travel around the country. you get beat up if you have big aroundbudgets going doing focus groups. do you agreeing? -- do you agree? you will not get praised traveling around the country doing focus groups. do you think, mr. agostini, that you would be praised traveling around the country doing focus groups? >> mr. chairman, i really don't

know if that would be the case. >> ok, you won't be. i will answer my own question. you won't be. so, i guess i am trying to say to figure out the best ways to try to help the citizens. job as beinge your important, that you are actually in the business of preventing businesses from engaging in fraudulent actresses or unfair practices -- practices or unfair practices? in the real world i am an ordained united methodist minister, so we consider a ministry to try to prevent people from being ripped off and hurt. do you see this as a mission? congressman, while we don't

do focus groups and have not anticipated that, we have had a number of listening sessions inoughout the country, and those listening sessions, what mighte learned is how we do our job better because of the range of people who come to those listening sessions to provide us with feedback, both consumers and industry participants. so, i think our ability to do that, go out and do the traveling and touch folks is important to us as we deliver our mission. existence of the cfpb linked to the idea that consumers have rights? >> i believe so, congressman. if that is the case, i think -- and i think it is the case. here we are, 200 years old as a

nation, and we have never had an agency out protecting the consumers in the financial services industry. so, i think it is kind of remarkable we have done it -- we are tardy. it may not be perfect. all thatsuggesting at what we have done was perfect and i supported it. i was on the committee. i supported it very strongly and i still supported. but i am also respectful of people who don't think it should exist but i think it is important for us to get as much evidence out as possible how important it is and that it is not, i think, and ideological ideological agency. i don't think your agency is out promoting a political ideology. >> no, sir. we are striving to fulfill the mission that congress gave us in dodd-frank. did you have a vote on dodd-

frank? >> that i have a vote? >> no, sir, i did not. to do you had nothing with creating the agency as it is currently structured. >> i joined the agency in november of 2011. >> i was trying to figure somebody to blame for creating the agency -- the ranking member andhe nearest person to me, i followed him and voted for it. the gentlest time is expired. the gentle men from kentucky, mr. barr, is recognized for five minutes. , a questionini about the funding sources for your agency. of dodd-frank provided the director is authorized to request amount that he determines to "be reasonably necessary to carry

out the authorities of the bureau under the federal consumer financial law." it further provides the federal reserve system shall -- emphasis , transfer amount requested by cfpb director. are you aware of any other agency model in the and higher administrative state and in the entire -- in the entire administrative state and the entire federal government structured in a manner in which the administrator or head of the agency can unilaterally determine effectively the budget of that particular agency? >> mr. chairman, i am not as knowledgeable about the funding for the federal reserve or the of the comptroller of the currency or the fdic. have sourcest they and resources that are outside the appropriations process. so, i would look there to try and answer that question for comparability. >> you testified earlier in

response to the question about .ccountability you testified that the justification, the policy justification for receiving the agencies of funding from the federal reserve system as opposed to congressional appropriations was "it allows us to focus on what we are doing." i was a just focus comes only when the agency is accountable to congress for appropriations. -- i would suggest focus comes only when the agency is accountable. to articles and a variety of publications, there is attention to the fact that cfpb has been losing senior staff and a variety of employees since inception. one recent article, and mike -- and i am quoting, reports that in recent months more than a dozen senior officials have left the agency. in interviews with "american banker" several former officials offered differing reasons for the flood of departures but many

cited cultural clashes between the new agency and the regulators where they used to work. offer anust briefly explanation for the rash of departures from your agency? >> congressman, i believe those people have left for a variety of reasons. let's take one particular case, and maybe you can illuminate why this may be happening. the issue of raje date, number two of the agency, is explained whether cfpb confirm the propriety of the consumer finance consulting work currently performed by mr. date so closely following his role as deputy director. >> congressman, i am not involved in the review you are speaking of, and i would be happy to take it back to our legal division to provide you

with an answer. andith respect to mr. date others who left your agency, others with high-ranking positions in your agency, what policies are in place with regard to a cooling off. old or work related restrictions for the senior staff -- cooling- off period. in congress, there is a cooling- off period before they can come -- engage in consulting or lobbying. it is one year. does your agency have in place a similar cooling-off uriel restriction -- cooling-off uriel the restriction? >> we follow the laws and rules respecting ethics but i would refer you to the legal division. >> i would ask your legal division in fact follow up with the subcommittee on that question. and also, are you aware of what mr. date was making an compensation? and a second question, what is he making now as a consultant? idea. chairman, i have no

what he is making now. and i believe his salary was a matter of record. and i am happy to provide that. >> i would appreciate it, again, if you would follow with the subcommittee. are you aware whether or not mr. date worked with the cfpb to ensure his transition is in fact compliance that only with the cfpb rules but other executive branch ethics requirements? and could you comment on that? notgain, congressman, i am aware of the process by which he was off boarded, if you will, and all of the ethics requirements associated with that. i am happy to take that back to our legal division. >> are you aware of any departing staff having inappropriately taken advantage of information gained through their employment at cfpb? >> congressman, i am not aware of that. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentlest time is expired.

ranking member, gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for five minutes. i think that you have had a full day. but we will just take one more round and cover a few more facts. to mean that there is some concern about the turnover rate. and i think it is a legitimate question, what is your turnover rate. what was it said to be by the way? >> huntsman, the turnover rate for -- gentlemen, the turnover rate for agency is slightly above nine percent. almost exactly the same as the federal turnover rate for the preceding year. i think it is roughly 9.3, 9.4%. experiencing to be attrition comparable to the rest of the federal government. the federal government -- is

that the entirety of the federal government? because i have a number that differs if you are talking about the u.s. house of representatives. >> it would be the entire federal government. house hasrmation the a turnover rate of 26%, that would be slightly above the nine percent that you have. there is some concern about whether people like you or not there'd i hate to get into congressional approval -- like you are not. i hate to get into congressional approval rates, especially because i like the rest of my colleagues and want continue to do what we do. as i am looking at the number, it looks like it is around 10%. which is pretty good for us, by the way. that is an improvement over what it was at one time, if i

understand it. it may have been a little bit red -- a little bit less. all of these things are great theater, but when you delve into the numbers you can find a rationale for why things are as they are. turnover rate in congress has to do with the fact that young people are upwardly mobile and they want to do bigger and better things. we hire some of the best and brightest people who want to move on to do other things. that is understandable. you, think to be fair to we have to look a little bit deeper into what actually happened to cause your turnover rate to be what it is. in closing, let's do this. we talked about accountability, and it appears to me you are exceedingly accountable. your director can be removed for cause. with other consult regulators when making rules.

in this true? -- is this true? >> it is true. >> you have to do a cost-benefit analysis? >> it is true. testify before congress twice a year -- actually the director is supposed to do it. we have a little politics here. other directors opposed to do it twice a year. >> true. -- from, someone from your agency testified 26 times before congress. is that a roundabout number? 36 times. your rules are subject to judicial review. meaning that if some entity that is accorded a certain rolling, it can be appealed, and it can be appealed -- certain rolling, a can be appealed and it can be appealed through a judiciary, independent third party. is this true? >> i believe that is correct ised -- i believe that correct. >> you have to reassess your

rules pure tickly. is this true? >> it is true. >> every five years? >> i don't know the frequency, but i'm -- but i believe every five years. -- can your rules be vetoed by other regulators? fsocbelieve it is correct, has the ability. omb?view by >> i am not certain about that, but -- but i believe it is true. >> let's talk about your audit, gao audit, correct? the ig, associated with that fed, can audit you as well. and then congress has mandated an independent audit. this is something that we require, an independent audit. you are not audited by another but you actually bring in an agency or entity that is without the government.

is this a fair statement? , that is correct. >> mandated by congress. done on an annual basis? >> yes, sir. >> so you do have accountability. the question is whether you are able to maintain. that is a job. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i will yield to myself five minutes. the you believe your agency is more or less accountable -- do you believe your agency is more or less accountable to congress as the irs? >> i cannot speak to the irs. i would echo many of the comments made by others with respect to the accountability, the reviews that we are subject to. an audit, semiannual reporting to congress, and will report to appropriations committee. we do feel that we are accountable and welcome that accountability. the talked earlier about

amount of contributions of those who have made political contributions, 95% of them made contributions to the presidential election that were reported were given to president obama. we juste irs kindle heard recently and give them a lot cited numbers -- given the irs scandal and the lopsided numbers, what safeguards do you have in place to ensure there is no political bias in cfpb's decision-making? offer chairman, i would that the legal division would be better at comprehensively answering that. >> that will be great. if you could give us a response about safeguards in place to make sure there is no political bias in the decision-making process, since there is a difference of opinion in levels of accountability. but there certainly are some questions there. a different subject. you mentioned earlier that cfpb has not spent up to its category cap. would you then support a reduction in the statutory cap

for cfpb or would you seek an increase or seek to keep it at the same level? , if congressan decides it wishes to change either our funding mechanism or the level of funding, we will, of course, abide by those changes. tois the case that for us proceed with the mission congress has currently given us with a something significantly less than what we have would us to make some choices as to what aspects of that mission we could actually accomplish. >> i hope we do have that discussion, because i think there are some real questions, again, to make sure that is the mission really being done, why are so many leading, especially people who have regulatory experience, who had come into the agency with regulatory experience and are now leaving. i think those are some big questions. if that mission could be getting

done. and the point i need to stresses why this matters to me is because it matters to my small and medium-sized financial institutions who are afraid, they are absolutely afraid of what regulators are doing to them, and specifically, cfpb. question of, is there going to be accountability there, how we are going to comply, by the people coming in regulating us, do they have the experience and training they need? the concerns seem to be justified because their own staff are saying they don't have the training they need. let me wrap up with this. and i think this is something that you've dealt with more directly, so hopefully you can have some answers on this. use the consumer financial civil penalty fund to selectively compensate victims and cases that are independent of the cfpb, such as by another federal agency, state attorney general or even private plaintiff. in effect, the chief financial officer, yourself, and

selectively determine whether to intervene in cases brought anywhere to compensate them. cfpb's a civil penalty governance board and the chief officer have brought this question to intervene selectively in. the question i have, mr. the cfo, please explain your role and responsibility with regard to the consumer financial civil penalty fund and explain exactly how that works and the safeguards that are there. chairman, the civil penalty fund was established based on statutory direction in dodd-frank. we have implemented a governance board. i said as an advisor to that governance board. there is also a fund administrator. that fund administrator reports to me, and i have the ability to select and remove. i would offer -- we have a notice of rulemaking that is out

currently. we are soliciting and have asked for commentary. sinceeriod of comment july 8 -- and still i ate. it said to expectations and rules for the civil penalty fund. >> my time is almost expired. given the breadth of potential cases cfpb could intervene to compensate victims, such a tool could easily be abused for political or other purposes. the thing -- when you agree? rules putn, with the in place and the roles reflected in the public notice of rulemaking, i believe that we have a very uncountable and structured manner in which to operate that fund. is expired, and we have had a chance to get through all of the witnesses for a second round. i would like to thank our witness for his testimony today. without objection, all members will have five legislative days

in which to submit additional written questions to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witness. i -- i ask our witness to respond as promptly as you are able. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit a extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. without objection, this hearing is adjourned. >> next, "q&a" with "national affairs" editor. and then your calls and comments on "washington journal." live at 3:30 p.m., the mexican ambassador to the u.s. takes part in a form on u.s.-mexico cooperation. >> we have always focused on what is important in business in 1996 is an example in more recent times in which the telecom act went into affect. in 1997, we were rolling out digital video, broadband services, residential telephone services, commercial services,

and bringing the bundle to the market. we were the first to start bundling products together. for that, our customers responded very positively. we have high penetration of products today. and we are able to get into new businesses that others did not even dream about because they have gotten there so early. everybody understands that sports and live sports right now is the sweet spot of media. it is almost the only thing that you have to watch live. that has increased its value. and i think everybody is seeing that now. whether they be social media types that are partnering with us to betweeting about sports or show sports live on facebook -- or other nate works, other cable networks. i think everyone understands that sports rights are a valuable. >> more on what is happening in the cable industry at this years cable show, full with leaders of

two of the country's largest the medication companies. "the communicators" tonight at at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. even though gettysburg was the midpoint and more people died after than before, why does it still loom so large a national memory? consider the statistics. 3hree days of fighting, july 1- , 18 63, 7000 killed, 33,000 wounded -- some of whom later died -- and 11,000 missing. of 50,000 total casualties in 13-day period. the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live all- day coverage from the gettysburg national military park next sunday, writing at 9:30 a.m. eastern, on american history tv on c-span three.

this week on "q &a," yuval levin. >> a he has been called "probably the most intellectual of the obama era." what does that mean? >> i wonder by whom. >> probably by jonathan chait. ani guess it means intellectual in politics is a person who tries to connect events to deeper currents, theoretical or. occurrence. -- or philosophical currents. there are narrow definitions. an intellectual is a person who tries to remake the world in

the image of some theory he has. in decades, there is is no such thing as a conservative intellectual. if you take a broader view that an intellectual tries to connect theory and practice, then maybe that is right. that is part of what my work trusted do very >> -- to do -- what my work tries to do. >> what is the number-one thing you do as a living? >>i am the editor of national affairs, quarterly journal of essays on public policy and political thought. i am also a fellow at a think tank here in washington. >> what you do? >> editing the magazine means editing the magazine. we run long essays by experts for the most part, academics, intellectuals, you might taken, about complicated public questions. some of them are very tactical. -- very practical. some of them aren't deeply