that the content of the e-mails that nothing has been lost. host: our guest of the morning was daniel metcalf. the former director of the office of information privacy. he also teaches at american university and secrecy law. take you for your time. guest: glad to be here. host: that is it for this morning. another edition of "washington journal" coming at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we take you to the house of representatives about to start a session for today. thank you. we will see tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 17, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as

speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. 7 the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. today the house budget committee will reveal the budget for fiscal year 2016. that budget will contain more money for afghanistan, which is why i am speaking on the floor today. afghanistan is an absolutely waste of taxpayers' money. it is a true graveyard of

empires. just two years ago i was speaking on the floor about a "new york times" article titled, karzai was assured c.i.a. would continue to deliver bags of cash. i will quote from that article again today. the c.i.a. money, mr. karzai told reporters, was an easy source of petty cash and some of it was used to pay off members of the political elite and a group dominated by warlords. this past sunday an article in the raleigh north carolina paper titled c.i.a. cash help to refill al qaeda's covers. according to the art erikle the c.i.a. contributes to al qaeda bottom line was another in a long list of examples of how the united states largely because of poor oversight and loose financial controls has sometimes inadvertently financed the very militants who have been killing american soldiers. finally, the article stated,

the cash flow has slowed since a new afghan president, mr. beganny, assumed office in september. afghan officials said, but they added the cash was still coming in. for at least five years, it has been reported that cash from the united states has been funneled to the afghan government through the c.i.a. as a sort of slush fund and some of that money has made its way to al qaeda. this is only one example of the waste, fraud, and abuse in afghanistan. yet the current administration has obligated the american taxpayer and soldier to nine more years in afghanistan. without even a debate on the floor of the house. let me remind the house al qaeda is our enemy. congress owes the american people and the soldiers a debate to end this failed policy. mr. speaker, after over $685

billion in taxpayers' dollars, blood and limbs lost in afghanistan it is time to stop the waste, fraud, and abuse of american taxpayer money. to start reallocating that money right here in america, to help our veterans, to help the infrastructure of america, and to help our children, america's future, why are he we spending this kind of money in afghanistan that is abused and wasted and used to kill american soldiers? i do not understand it, mr. speaker. our debt is over $18 trillion. when president clinton left office in the year 2000, our debt was $5.6 trillion, and today it is over $18 trillion in debt and we continue nine more years of waste, fraud, and abuse in afghanistan. we in congress owe the american people a debate. with that, mr. speaker, before closing i will ask god to

please bless our men and women in uniform. god please bless the families a child who died for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i will ask god to please bless the president and the house and the senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today and god's people tomorrow. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor the ted fowler, who recently retired from a storied career from one of north carolina's and indeed one of america's famous dining establishments, golden corral. an inspirational leader, he retired after nearly 40 years at the helm of colden corral. -- golden corral. he's a relentless competitor who achieved great success by demonstrating tireless

commitment to his company employees, and customers. he joined the golden corral family not long after its first restaurant opened in 1973. he overawe the expansion of a franchise from a one family steak house to over 500 restaurants nationwide. this includes operations in 41 states with over 9000 employees and revenues upwards of $195 million. mr. speaker, that is no small fete. -- feat. ted steered the company through the transition which is a difficult understeaking. he worked hard for the upward mobility of his employees so every employee had a chance to achieve a better life. he initiated a company program that helped entry-level employees become managers within a year. and within five years, they could run their own franchise. mr. fowler is more than just a respected leader in the restaurant industry he truly cared about the people who worked and dined at golden corral. for instance, since 2001

golden corral has served more than four million free meals to active and retired military personnel on veterans day. he also oversaw camp corral, a free, one of a kind summer camp for children of wounded and disabled or fallen military service members. since its founding, camp corral has grown to 20 camps and 16 states and served over ,000 children. -- 4000 children. it's because of big hearted causes like this that i'm proud to call ted fowler a friend. encouragement and leadership exemplified through many of his programs are some of the reasons why mr. fowler is a past recipient of the north carolina restaurateur of the year award and food service operator of the year gold plate award. mr. speaker, i'm honored to recognize and congratulate a proven job creator and even a better man. ted fowler embodies all the quality of a noble, compassionate businessman. i wish him good health and

happiness in his retirement. with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, for five minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about an impending crisis that will come upon us in 2016. mr. speaker not too many people know or realize that our social security disability trust fund is going to be insolvent bankrupt, underfunded, whatever term you want to use by the middle of 2016. mr. speaker what that means is that our fellow americans approximately 11 million of them who receive social security disability checks are going to be looking at a 20% reduction in their benefit come the middle of 2016. if we do not step up to the plate and reform this critical program. now, mr. speaker, i serve on

the ways and means committee here in washington, d.c. two years ago i questioned our treasury secretary from the white house and i said, mr. lew, where is the white house's proposal to deal with this issue? nothing in the budget from the white house. nothing in the treasury secretary's testimony addressed this canary in the coal mine that is coming down upon us in 2016. this year i asked the same question. and essentially what i got was the proposal that they are going to take from social security retirees, the contributions they make to social security retirement and transfer it into the disability trust fund. mr. speaker, my private practice, my private life before i came to washington d.c. as a businessman, that is essentially robbing peter to pay paul. that is unacceptable. we need to protect social security retirees. we also, mr. speaker, need to protect our fellow americans

who suffer from disabilities. we need to do better than robbing peter to pay paul. that's why i am looking for input from colleagues on the other side of the aisle, people across the nation, to say how can we reform the social security disability trust fund so that it meets its obligations and it stands with the disabled community in a way that says, you know what, if you want to return to work you can. because right now, mr. speaker, my humble opinion, the social security disability trust fund penalizes those who suffer from disabilities if they return to work because then they lose their benefits. that doesn't make sense. i support the work ethic of america. and that is why i support reforms that are going to take care of the disability trust fund to make sure that our fellow americans receive the benefits that they need and rely upon. but we are also go to stand with our disability community and make sure that they want to

return to work and have a capacity to return to work. we in washington d.c., will stand with them and reward that work ethic. and bottom line i am he' going to protect our social security retirees -- i'm going to protect our social security retirees. because to put them in harm's way as we know the pending social security crisis that will come to a head in 2033 aurned the corner, to take from that retirement fund is further weakening our social security system. we can do better. we must do better. i care about those retirees. i care about those disabled fellow americans. and that is why i call today that we are not going to maintain the status quo of robbing peter to pay paul. but we are going to get to the business of reform. we are going to protect retirees. and take care of our fellow americans. who are disabled. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> do you trust the secret service to protect the president? that is our social media question today. log on to facebook.com/c-span to

offer your remarks. we could put some of them on the air. also c-span chat if you'd like to leave us a message on twitter. some other live programming coming up. interior secretary sally jewell on capitol hill. expect to talk about energy policy. see that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. this weekends, the c-span cities toured has partnered with mediacome to learn about the history life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad, the c.s.s. jackson. this is an ironclad that was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson. jackson is armed with six brook rifle. the particular rifle firing today someone of the guns built

specifically for the jack sovepblet it was cast at the naval works in alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only 4-iron clads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here in. this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or 2-iron clads. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> in about a half-hour we'll take you live to the house budget committee. they are hosting a briefing this morning on the committee's f.y.

2015 budget resolution. starts about 10:45 eastern. we'll take you there here on c-span. while we wait for that, a discussion this morning with a republican member of congress on his recent trip to egypt and the administration's approach to negotiations with iran. over nuclear weapons. joining us now, republican steve king, representative of iowa joining us, just back from egypt. what took you their? guest: it was a delegation that was planned and put together by the subcommittee chairman of foreign affairs. we put this together -- we put this off for some weeks or months. i have visited egypt several times now. and it was --assisi.

they have done a lot to keep their promises including draft a constitution ratifiy a constitution and elect a president. now it looks like egypt has a plan. egypt has a plan to move themselves into the 21st century. it will be difficult to achieve, of course, but you have to have vision in order to achieve. i was very happy to be there in the conference and meet with a number of other visitors -- ministers and ambassadors as well. late onset or a night, president assisi saved it -- late on saturday night president assisi saved is so we could talk with us. we had a long discussion. host: what about isis? did you discuss any of that with him? guest: we did. i was very impressed with him. i compared america being under

attack from all corners by isis and radical islamists and his statement was, well, they are surrounded by it and it is internal for them as well. the safest border they have is to see itself. he needs american equipment -- the we have a contract to deliver apache helicopters to them. those are now been delivered. there are some parts that have not been delivered. and some increment doesn't life it does not parts first -- it doesn't have certain parts. there are political reasons for this not happening in a timely fashion. in that absence, the egyptians have struck a deal with the

russians to buy $3.2 billion worth of equipment. i took -- i talked to the state department about that and they said that the egyptians are have any money and the russians don't have any permit to give away, so don't worry about that. well, now they have done that. they are diversifying because they don't have the confidence in us. and our relationship with egypt has gone down dramatically. we are trying to hold that down to -- hold that down together. egypt is not only the key to peace in the middle east, but i believe it is how we address it -- address radicalism in the long-term. host: what should the united states be doing instead of what they are doing? guest: the obama administration stood up morsi, and they were committed to morsi, who was a member of the muslim brotherhood. and when people came out in the

street, 33 million strong, and demanded they get their country back, the of ministration found themselves 180 degrees off with the people of egypt. they have to turn this ship around and get behind the newly affect -- the newly elected assisi. that is what needs to happen, so there is support again for the egyptian people. my message and the message of my delegation is, we do not support as americans the muslim brotherhood. we support the egyptian people and the government elected by them. i know they will resist sharia law and move egypt into the western world more so than they are today, and move into the 21st century with finances technology, innovation education, all of the things necessary for them to be a prosperous nation. host: the of steve king of iowa talking about foreign relations

and other issues. if you want to ask him questions , the numbers are on the screen. there are those in the united states that would want to see egypt doing more promoting democracy and human rights. are they doing enough and is that a concern for you? guest: i hear the criticism and yes, i have a concert, but instead i think we need to hear more about what they have done. -- i have a concern, but instead i think we need to hear more about what they have done. there were several christian churches burnt in the last two or three years. they wrote in the constitution that not only can they reveal these churches, but a lot of them are being rebuilt with egyptian taxpayer money. and they opened them up so that new christian churches can be built in egypt. the core of christianity has a

much greater respect in this constitution than it did have under the morsi regime. i was able to meet with and congratulate mr. moussa, who was the chairman of the constitution committee. he wrote a lot of that into the constitution. i think they have done a lot for human rights and i'm confident they will start moving egypt into that more moderate, western -- and let me make a statement here. it is broad and i think it has meaning. we watched as ataturk came to power in the aftermath of the ottoman empire. he moved turkey into the western part of the world, at least as a bridge between east and the west. we have seen them drift back the other way in the past few years under air to one e --rdogan. i think egypt could help move them back in the way. host: the washington post talked

about president el-sisi, talking about a couple of bloggers. and they talked about the new law. guest: well, if you look at canada, they prosecute people for hate speech. that happens across europe, too. this site which is not seem to need to be more serious than the rest of what is out in the world. maybe the post is comparing america's constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and speech and assembly to what is going on right now. i don't advocate for restrictions on speech or activity but they also have a security circumstance there. there have been hundreds that

have been killed in egypt in this civil strife. let's give them a little bit of time and see how this get stabilized. i know the muslim brotherhood they were seated in the front row on june 4, 2009, when president obama gave his speech of the university of cairo. that sent a message to the egyptian people that this administration support the muslim brotherhood. that is the biggest concern in each of right now, the message about the united case and whether or not we support -- the united states and whether or not we support the egyptian people or the muslim brotherhood. i'm more concerned about that then -- than the concern about freedom of speech that might not be quite to american standards today. stabilizing egypt is more important right now. and let's go on and push for the freedom of speech and assembly. host: john from pennsylvania republican line. you are up first for our guest. caller: good morning.

they give for taking my call. happy in patrick's day. it's a true honor. you are one of my favorite congressman, congressman king. i have a few comments if i might. i will try to be brief. i have been quite disappointed with the leaders of the party the speaker and the senatorial leader mcconnell. it's as though they did not -- they use the issue of immigration, illegal immigration and the amnesty, the unconstitutional immigration action the president took and use it as an election tool. and then when they get elected they effectively just drop it. as far as i'm concerned, it should be the number one issue. politicians have to learn that if they are not going to follow through, why would people want to go to the polls to vote? republicans lost a lot of voters

, traditional republican voters in 2012 because they just weren't motivated. republicans are not advocating for them. senator sessions is a fantastic spokesman for our cause, so to speak. i strongly feel it is time for resolution in the dear joe. -- doho. the american intelligence agencies put out a report and they concluded that iran does not have nuclear weapons. host: thank you. guest: thank you for your your i

should be brief. first of all, with regard to amnesty, i don't think this is a question. they should go back to the original policy and memos.

each of us, in the house and senate -- these are lawless decisions. there are threeeach of us, in the house and senate -- these are lawless decisions. there are three equal branches of government. they envision each grants of -- -- branch of government through the constitution. the president of the united states actively usurped article one. all legislative powers.

i have hope for the constitution. i'm troubled. i'm very concerned. it is an existential threat to israel, but also the world.

troubled. i'm very concerned. it is an existential threat to israel, but also the world. i think a lot of the world is at great risk. caller: good morning. you -- we are having a hard time over here. when are you going to get together and help us? the black man and the poor person is hurting. we need jobs. answer me on that. we are hurting. guest: thanks for calling in. it is a broader map. western civilization. what will we do about jobs for this country is another part of your question. there are, right now 93 million americans of working age out of the workforce.

some are retired. that takes jobs away from everyone.

it's -- any job where the law on immigration is in force, that opens up a job for an american green card holder, or immigrant.

force, that opens up a job for an american green card holder, or immigrant. we tighten up our immigration gradually in the process of doing so, the labor market gets tighter. and jobs are available to more american people. that is how we increase the average annual gdp per capita. that is what we should be doing and public policy. host: house republicans are expected to unveil their budget. they are saying it would partly privatize medicare. what do you think of the approaches? guest: i support them generally. . what do you think of the approaches? guest: i support them generally. of course, i am the author of the repeal obamacare. the first draft goes back to 2010. the obamacare piece of it is costing hundreds of billions of dollars. it is hurting people. we have lost all the time that we could have been improving our health care system in the united states with this administrative behemoth that reduces resources. i will continue down that path. that repeal, by the way, past

the house. that repeal, by the way, past the house. now, i would like to see the senate take up the repeal. then, with medicaid to the states. the states will do a better job of managing the resources. i think that is a very legitimate thing. i recall democratic governors asking congress to grant them a block grant to medicaid. this is bipartisan. i think it is a good approach, a good start. the budget balances by the way.

you won't see that proposed by the president or the other party either. i have long pushed to bring about its budget to the floor. i think it should be a little tighter than this one. i promise the chairman to look for a more conservative bill that balances sooner. i think he has laid a good foundation. host: here is rotting in maryland. independent line. caller: how are you doing third? good morning. mr. king, i have a lot of respect for the years of our government. you start off the conversation -- let's be honest to the people. -- let's be honest to the people. you complain about the muslim brotherhood. you are saying be president of

venezuela bad for locking up political prisoners. this confusion lends itself to us americans being criticized in foreign countries. you have to, at some point in time, -- thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for speaking up. we had different views here. having traveled in and out of egypt several times on a previous trip, the minister was bonds. i see this thing in a different way. egypt is a muslim country. 90% or 91% muslim. that doesn't mean that they

embrace the muslim brotherhood. in fact, they rejected it. 30 million to 33 to 33 million people took to the street starting on june 29, 2013 and pleaded with the military, get our country back. yes, we have had one election,. morsi started implementing law. the egyptian people rose up against it. they didn't want it. in my meaty -- meeting with the president on saturday night he says that that meeting, muslim brotherhoodbrotherhood, wants to impose that law. they want to impose divine law. he stopped and said sharia law. he tipped his head down. they have a parliament that does not want to accept sharia law. they rejected.

you can be a muslim and separate government from religion, at least in theory. if that can happen, we can have a more peaceful world. if the world will always have to deal with islam as if it is coming to impose sharia law on the rest of the world, we will always have to deal with bloodshed and strike. i want to see peace in the world. i want to see peace in the middle east. i want to see a stable region and i see a lot of potential there. host: you talk about your trip to egypt. "roll call" reports that the trip was canceled by seeger boehner. is that the case? guest: it is. i thought was time to move someone in who would protect the institution of the united states house of representatives from the speaker's chair. that is my prerogative as a seated member of the united states congress.

i think michael to uphold the constitution. on the funding that we had touched on, with the funding of homeland security, the funding that was determined to move forward that would fund the president's lawless executive amnesty, i oppose that. this bill that was set up for months was all signed off on certified, the committee chair had also signed. the tickets were bought. everything was punched. the schedule was all there. i had my backpack. i was ready to take assignment -- take a 7:00 flight, and we got the word that the certification have been revoked. that came at 5:15 a.m. the day of us will be taking off at 7:00. one can only came at 5:15 a.m. the

day of us will be taking off at 7:00. one can only speculate, it doesn't make sense to rationalize any other way, that the speaker is seeking to impose his will on sovereign congress. host: how was the trip paid for? guest: out of my pocket. host: in this interview, i also used to expand you say there is a growing alliance to perform a coup on speaker boehner. guest: i don't think i said that. if i'm asked to reflect on what is going on, of course those discussions have taken place. host: with whom? guest: those are the kinds of conversations that take place in back rooms. for that reason, those people want to remain anonymous. i think there are about 24 or 25

members. host: republican -- representative steve king us, republican from iowa. caller: good morning, steve. my question is on your researchers egypt. -- on your researchers to egypt. the president of egypt is building the largest dam in africa. i'm curious how he can tell the people of egypt that nuclear power would it be used on the people of egypt to destroy the dam. i just want to hear your conversation with the president and update on the situation. guest: i miss the little bit of that. anytime that we say to our

country you have to guarantee that the military equipment that we send you, or sell you, will not be used against her own people, that is a difficult guaranteed to actually secure. i think the promise comes pretty easily. but, look at history. and 16 flying over you, will not be used against her own people, that is a difficult guaranteed to actually secure. i think the promise comes pretty easily. but, look at history.

and 16 flying over his own people. comes down to the factors, the historical components, the level of trust, and the voters. you have all kinds of modus to defend egypt from radical islamist. he has known authority to attack registered -- attack the egyptian people. when christians were be the headed on the shores of tripoli, it didn't take long for libya to send a message. they were offended by the beheadings. he told the beheadings. he told the beheadings. he told us, this nation cried. we mourned and cried over the 21 christians who were beheaded in libya. i believe that. i looked him in the eye and i believe that. i would say, also, i asked him about a year or so ago, when they were setting up the civilian government, will be civilian governmen -- military take ordersmilitary take orders from a civilian government. his answer was yes we will. i did not have the expectation that he would be the president of the civilian government, but asked them that partly in jest. host: from new york, here is tom. tom is on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. thank you, mr. king. i just want to say thank you very much for sticking to your guns and sticking up for the american people. my company was put out of

my company was put out of business by a legal aliens. i had 25 taxpaying citizens working for me, now they don't have work. there's more work than i've ever seen my life, and it is all being done by a legal -- illegal aliens. i wish someone would take notice and come out here and see what is really going on. i want to thank you very much again, mr. king. i really appreciate it. guest: thank you a lot for calling again. you are living this. i spent my life and the construction business. i started construction company in 1975. we are celebrating our 40th year and construction this year. i sold my business to my older son several years ago. we watch thisi sold my business to my older son several years ago. we watch this too. i drafted a bill to her three congresses ago called the new idea act. an acronym that stands for the illegal reduction act.

it clarifies that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for federal income tax reasons. it gives the employee or a safe harbor if you use e-verify to verify that your employees are eligible to work. under a nobody, the irs would come in, run the social security numbers through e-verify

>> we will leave this discussion from this morning's "washington journal" to go live now to capitol hill and see house budget committee members are holding a briefing on the budget. >> happy st. patrick's day to all. i'm very, very proud to join my colleagues, members of the house budget committee to present a balanced budget for a stronger america. when i talk with folks back in my district, back in georgia, and talk with folks around the country, they are very concerned. some are angry. some are really frustrated about the direction of our great country. they feel we are adrift. that washington seems incapable of addressing their concerns. that the federal government is getting in the way and impeding

the very spirit of the american people. and the president's response in his budget, more taxes, more spending more borrowing, more debt more stagnant growth. remember that every single doll a. every dollar that's taken for -- dollar, every dollar that's taken for taxes or borrow money is a dollar that can't be spent to buy car, pay the rent, to send a child to college, or to technical school, to buy a house, to expand the business, or grow a business, create jobs. we think there's a better way. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen said a few years ago, when asked what the number one threat to america's national security, the number one threat, he said the debt. the debt. what he knows and what the american people know is that unless we have economic security we cannot have national security. instead of the insecurity and uncertainty of the president's plan, we think there's a better way. we believe in promoting the greatest amount of opportunity

for the greatest number of americans so that the greatest amount of success can be realized and the greatest number of american dreams can be found. in doing so, in a way that demonstrates real hope and real optimism and real compassion and real fairness without washington picking winners and losers. our balanced budget for a stronger america saves $5.5 trillion. gets to balance within 10 years without raising taxes. we responsibly lay out a plan for a healthy economy. an opportunity economy. one that opens the doors for people not subjects them to the dictates of washington, d.c. we save and strengthen medicare and medicaid instead of allowing them to continue on the path of insolvency which is what the president's plan is. we recognize the imperative of providing for the military men and women and their families, the resources needed to protect our national security and respect their service. in fact, our budget spends more on national defense than the

president's and we do so in a responsible way that addresses current law and lays out a path to address the ongoing concerns of the military so that they are better able to plan and prepare to meet current challenges and those in the future. we believe in america. we believe in americans. we understand our problems are significant and we hear the people of this nation crying out for leadership here in washington, d.c. this balanced budget, this balanced budget, for a stronger america, will result in a government that is more efficient and effective and accountable. one that frees up the american spirit, american optimism, and enthusiasm to do great things and to meet great challenges. and we encourage our colleagues and fellow citizens across this nation to join us in this exciting opportunity. go to budget.house.gov and download our blueprint budget. got a few members of the house budget committee who will make some comments about some specific areas of our budget. first up is the gentleman from indiana, the vice chairman of the budget committee, mr.

rokita. mr. rokita: thank you chairman. vice chairman of the committee. i want to first say how proud i am to stand in front of my fellow colleagues here. we have taken our job very seriously. ours, member meetings, putting this responsible and accurate document together. not ours -- hours of staff meetings, hours of member meetings. we each have been actively engaged in this process. i think that's worth noting. first and foremost it's important to know that this balance, this budget balances within 10 years. now, that is the quickest of any of the recently passed house budgets. and it's also important to note that it's a very stark contrast to the president's budget. that never balances. how can we begin to pay our debt if we can't even get to balance

under the president's plan? our plan does that. it does it in a responsible way. after that, after we balance, we begin to pay down our debt so that future generations aren't saddled with irresponsible decision that is have been made in the past. a balanced budget is crucial to giving individuals families, and businesses greater certainty for the future and it shows the american people and frankly the rest of the world that we are ready to make the tough decisions and hold government accountable in how it spends our hard-earned tax dollars and why america should be the financial leader for years to come. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. my name's rob will. from the seventh district of georgia. mr. will: i want talk -- mr. woodall: i want to talk about the job opportunities in the budget. the budget a moral document t talks about where your values are. and what this committee values, what this conference values is

the opportunity for job creation. i happen to be with a group of manufacturers this morning completely unsolicited well, you can give us bad news or give us good news, but what we need is certainty. if we can have certainty, then we can get back to the business of creating jobs. in an uncertain economy, in a world where the president's budget purports to borrow not just next year, not just 10 years from now but 20 years from now, 30 years from now, and 40 years from now job creators know there is no certainty. this budget balances in a responsible way. provides certainty on issues of interest rates and borrowing because we know america's government will no longer be that dominant borrower. provides certainty from a tax code. how many state of the union speeches have we all sat through where we talked about the importance of reforming the tax code in order to create american jobs? how many proposals have we seen come forward from downtown? this budget, this budget

anticipates that fundamentally structuring of the tax code that allows us to be the absolute magnet for job creation around the globe. from streamlining regulations to focusing on energy production, item after item you will see that commitment to certainty. i'm very proud of what budget committee has done. i'm proud of what the last four budget committees have done. but we never had an opportunity to partner that the senate provide that certainty for good. i hope you look carefully at what is different this year when folks are playing with the opportunity for the first time in my short congressional career to actually bring a budget to the united states of america. i'm grateful to the chairman for his leadership. i look forward to being a great part of it. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to all of you. let me say that it is an honor

to be here with my members of the committee and each of you as we unveil this a balanced budget for our stronger america. as -- for more than 40 years i'm pleased to tell you this budget repeals all of bow bama care. the taxes, the mandates, and regulations that are wreaking havoc on our health care system and our economy. we additionally end obamacare's $700 billion-plus raid on medicare and we put forward a proposal to save and strengthen the program for today's seniors and future retirees. further, our budget empowers states by giving them the flexibility that's needed to taylor their medicaid programs that -- tailor their medicaid programs that fit the unique needs of their populations and we call on policymakers to start over with the health care lee form that puts patients -- with health care reform that puts patients families, and doctors

in charge not washington bureaucrats. i'm very proud of this budget and i look forward to future action to put this budget in action and pass it into law. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. plies: we are enthusiastic. -- mr. price: we are enthusiastic about the future of our great country. we recognize there are huge challenges and know that economic security is the key to national security. and the key to a brighter more hopeful future for all americans. again, our budget, a balanced budget, for a stronger america, is a bath forward to that bright irfuture. for government lives within its means, for washington is efficient, effective, and accountable. we embrace the challenge and opportunity and we call again on our colleagues and our fellow citizens across this great country as we move forward together. a balanced budget for a stronger america, budget.house.gov. i'm happy to take a few questions. >> dr. price, which committees

do you intend to issue reconciliation instructions to and what do you plan to use reconciliation for? mr. price: the great opportunity we have with a senate that is now in republican hands is that we have an opportunity to have a unified budget between the two chambers and do something called reconciliation, which is an opportunity to pass a piece of legislation out of the house and out of the senate with just 51 votes in the united states senate and put it on the president's desk to put forward good policy and to provide a contrast for the american people to see who's trying to solve these challenges and who might be standing in the way. our reconciliation directives will direct eight or nine different committees to identify areas of savings and have the flexibility to be able to address the issue of obamacare repeal. has flexibility to address other items should the conference desire to do so. we have specific language that identifies calls on the committees of jurisdiction to identify ways in which obamacare

might be able to be repealed. >> to follow up on that. looking at the instructions it looks like it's about $5 billion which comes a lot short than the $5 trillion are you talking about. why not go for a hire number on sec reconciliation? mr. price: the amount of savings we find in the budget ourself and demonstrate over a 10-year period of time are two different things. the reconciliation instructions given to the committee are put an appropriate level that allows them to go above it. that's a floor not ceiling. so we are able to dreast the kind of deficit reduction that we might desire. again, it's also an opportunity to provide a positive solution that the american people desire, put it on the president's desk and encourage him to sign. >> you it assumes the c.b.o. baseline which assumes the expiration of tax extenders which would amount to a $900 billion revenue increase from current policy. secondly you claim that you're repealing all of the obamacare

taxes, but you have a baseline on ref nue. can you square those two things? mr. price: we believe in the american people and believe in growth. the amount of spending that's done here in washington we believe to be at a level that we can rein in, just decreasing spending or reining in spending will not get us to the kind of economy we want or allow the american people to get back to work and realize their dreefments the tax reform we have identified and the proposals we put forward we believe will result in significant increase in growth. it's important for people to appreciate this. the congressional budget office has decreased its estimate on growth in this country from 3% four years ago to 2.3% annually over the next 10 years. 2.3%. recognize the average for the last 40 years has been 3.3% growth. what's that difference mean? what's that 1% difference mean? that means over $3 trillion $3 trillion over that period of

time in greater revenue to the federal government because of the greater increase in economic activity. so as i mentioned before, we believe in the american people. we believe in the vitality of their enthusiasm and the vitality of an economy. if you let it loose. if you let it g that's what we embrace. >> are you claiming that economic growth just magically matches the c.b.o. baseline and that that $900 billion for the extenders -- mr. price: we not only believe it will, we believe it will exceed it. it isn't accounted for in our budget in new erical -- numerical values because we believe if you increase growth from 2., the increase will be over $3 trillion over that period of time. more than covering the baseline of the c.b.o. estimate. >> over the $5 trillion in savings, could you -- is --

mr. price: let me encourage you to take a peek sat a balanced budget for a strong america i encourage you to go there and courage the american people to go there budget.house.gov. . mr. price: there are very specific notations where that comes from. the welfare programs. we encourage working as a component of participating in a welfare program for abled body adults. the snap program we believe is better run at the state level rather than federal level. each one of those things gets you a good amount of savings. the good news over the constellation of all of those results in significant savings for the american people so we can get it rolling again. >> on tax reform. your intention that tax reform will be revenue neutral.

you wouldn't be capturing any revenue from closing any of those loopholes? mr. price: we don't account for any revenue because of the question that andy asked. how can you plug a number in there when you don't know what's exactly going to be? we however feel strongly and confidently, as has happened every time that federal government reduced taxes for the american people it's increased revenue to the federal government. so we believe that a strong and vibrant economy rests are on progrowth tax reform. >> why does the c.b.o. only give you $147 billion in sort of deficit reduction effects from the economic growth, why is that number not bigger? mr. price: because the process they go through to score is by and large static scoring which doesn't recognize the feedback that happens in the dynamic way that our economy works. we're excited about the opportunity that we have. i can't tell you how proud i am of the men and women standing

behind me and the work they've done in the budget committee. we look forward to having it in markup tomorrow and having it on the floor next week. thanks so much. god bless. >> chairman price, about the c.b.o. score -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the budget committee on their 2015 budget resolution. you can read that anytime on our website at c-span.org. members starting legislative work at 12:00 p.m. one dealing with the e.p.a. science advisory board. the other would ban e.p.a. rules that are not based on, quote, transparent and reproducible science. we expect votes on those measures this afternoon. more live coverage here on c-span starting at noon eastern. as we wait for the house to

reconvene, we'll go live now to the house financial services committee. you're hearing from treasury secretary jack lew this morning. we'll show you as much as we can until the house gavels back in at noon eastern. mr. scott: the need is tremendously great, as you know and continues to be. we now have only, according to the legislation, about 21 months before the end of 2016 when the balance of the money not used comes back to you. do you have a report on how these states are progressing? from our indication, certainly in a hard-hit state like georgia, none of the money should be coming back. much of it goes to help struggling homeowners to be able to pay for their mortgage up to 24 months. it's desperately needed and desperately needed for our veterans who many are facing mortgage problems. how are we doing on that, and

do you have any system in place to gauge how those states are doing it to make sure that they are leaving that money in their states to help the american people? mr. lujan: congressman, we do -- secretary lew: congressman, we want the states to use their hardest hit money to make sure that funds can be used not just for some of the more obvious purposes but for things like the -- in michigan, the destruction of housing that's a plight on the community. i'd have to go back and check on the state-by-state numbers on georgia -- we are working to make sure that money gets -- mr. scott: if you could, could you -- i'm sure other members on the committee would like to know how their states are but i'm particularly concerned. secretary lew: i'd be happy to get back to you. mr. scott: the balance left in the state of georgia, that $39

million, so we might be able to light additional fire under it to make sure that money stays in georgia. now, let me ask you about isis. what have we done to disrupt isis terrorist funding? and particularly, to what extend 10th are countries across europe and in the middle east coming together behind a common strategy to disrupt isis financing? secretary lew: congressman, we've worked very closely with our allies in europe and in the region to do everything we can to stop the flow of funds to support isis. i think -- mr. scott: specifically, what -- could you give us an idea? secretary lew: well, there are different countries that have different degrees of visibility into where money is flowing so we have had on a bilateral

basis conversations with many countries to make sure they put their resources to bear, to look at questionable entities and individuals. i'd had many conversations at a very senior level in governments in the region to get the commitment to put those resources into it. i think the reality of isis funding is that it's not principally coming from money flowing from outside of the country in. the way isis has been funded in part as been to concur territory and to take the bank -- conquer territory and to take the bank faults. it's been to pressure people in the area to make payments to support isis. mr. scott: have we been able to increase our participation with turkey for example, in terms of the oil? secretary lew: yeah. we have worked closely with turkey, brought a lot of pressure to bear for turkey to be attentive to and effective in controlling the flow of oil.

frankly, our military actions have done quite a lot to disrupt some of that oil flow. turkey has pledged to be cooperative, but it is a very long border and there's very informal means of moving contraband across the border so it's a difficult challenge. but we are very much engaged with them to try and stop it. mr. scott: thank you mr. secretary. mr. hensarling: thank you, the chair recognizes mr. neugebauer. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. secretary lew, you are part of fsoc assessing risk and monitoring threats to the financial stability. in 2010, the dodd-frank act designated that institutions above $50 billion in total assets would be considered systemically important. that their -- poses a risk to

the financial stability. unfortunately during that period of time there wasn't any analysis of the factors of what is a systemically important feature. and so arbitrarily that number was set at $50 billion. today, there's quite honestly bipartisan and even bicameral support growing that to increase this number. since really during that time they really didn't take the time to analyze whether it should be 50 or 75 or 25. they set that arbitrary number. as you know section 115 authorizes fsoc to recommend to the federal reserve that the $50 billion threshold for designation be raised. unfortunately, i can't find any evidence where fsoc is actually taking any efforts to analyze the appropriate level for sifi designation. so i question i have today, has

fsoc completed a review under section 115 to raise assets threshold of application of enhanced standards yes or no? secretary lew: fsoc and the members of fsoc have had -- mr. neugebauer: that wasn't the question. whether they were being attentive or not. have they taken a detailed analysis under section 115 to determine whether additional threshold could be raised? secretary lew: so i think the question of formal versus discussions is really the issue. there have been a lot of discussions about -- mr. neugebauer: i'm talking about formal? is the answer to formal no? secretary lew: i'm not aware of a formal review. when i say attention, what i mean is in the development of regulations, there's a lot of flexibility of what the standards should be for institutions of different size. nobody has confused a $50 billion with a multitrillion-dollar institution. mr. neugebauer: they weren't

able to ascertain that when the legislation was put in place. they gave you a vehicle. i guess what i hear you saying, maybe there's been discussion about that but nothing formally has been done to address whether that threshold is too low, is that correct? secretary lew: i'm not aware of a formal review, congressman. mr. neugebauer: were you aware last month o.f.r. released a report using systemic indicators and they used a framework, i think, of five factors, categories under the basel committee. interestingly enough, the results demonstrated huge variation between systemic importance between the largest banks in the regional regional banks, were you familiar with that report? secretary lew: yes. mr. neugebauer: were you surprised by the results of that? secretary lew: congressman, i think i'd have to look at the details of the report to comment on it in detail. mr. neugebauer: did you find any flaws in that analysis? did you think that was a fair analysis of the factors and that the results were -- it's

your report. secretary lew: no. they did independent work. i'd be happy to look at it and give you a thoughtful comment on it. i'm not surprised they're looking at the issue, no. mr. neugebauer: i guess the question is, since you have the authority under section 115 to do that, and there's been a lot of discussion about that, and even bipartisan support, bicameral support to do that, i'm just kind of surprised why fsoc hasn't taken on the features of 115 to do that. secretary lew: congressman, what i focused on in the two years that i've been chair of fsoc is to make sure we implement the provisions of dodd-frank. at each step of the way i encouraged regulators to take note of the difference what they do for small, medium and large-sized financial institutions. i believe they've done that in an ongoing basis. they continue to do. to the extent they have flexibility, it's appropriate

to use it. i'm not ruling out the use of section 115. i just think it's a question of first getting through the process of implementing the full dodd-frank, which is what we've been trying to do. mr. neugebauer: would you then if you've seen the o.f.r. report and seen the wide range there, would you agree that probably that that process needs to take place that $50 billion threshold is maybe not the right number? secretary lew: i don't think there's any question that a $50 billion institution has different characteristics than a money slender bank. i don't think the only solution is to move the limit. it's to look at, what are you doing to make sure that you're appropriately looking at institutions of different sizes? mr. neugebauer: all the more reason to do the 115 analysis. secretary lew: i'd be happy to go back and take a look at it. we've been very much to make sure the focus that the burden are appropriate to those institutions. mr. hensarling: the time of the

gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, ranking member of our capital markets subcommittee. mrs. maloney: thank you and welcome, chairman lew. i would like to ask you to help me understand this chart. this chart is a chart that shows the economy. it begins in 2008 when president obama was elected and the deep red shows that economy was hemorrhaging. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. the blue tracks the job growth under president obama, and the picture begins to improve. we see straight -- five straight years of job growth. 12 million private sector jobs over the past 60 months. and what factors do you think were most important in achieving this dramatic turnaround where we have grown 12 million private sector jobs

in the past 60 months and a positive job growth for our country? of course it's never good until. until every american has a job. but it's certainly a vast improvement. to what do you contribute this dramatic turnaround -- attribute this dramatic turnaround to? secretary lew: i've seen that chart many times. the economy was in freefall when the president took office. that's what the red at the left-hand side of the chart shows. i have to start by saying the grit and determination of the american people are the reason that we have the ability to bounce back. but it's also because our government responded quickly and aggressively to deal with the causes of the problem and to get the economy moving again. so you look around the world. where was the response to the financial crisis and the economic crisis? most direct, it was the united states. we did financial reform to fix the problem. we went into the business of jump-starting the economy with

the recovery act which i think made a huge difference and then with payroll tax cuts that gave additional boost to the economy when it needed it. and our fed led the world in thinking through how to use monetary policy creatively in a world of very low interest rates. i think you look at what we did we used all threes levers, reform fiscal policy and monetary policy effectively. the world used the tools and didn't use them as effectively as they might. i think one of the things our experience should teach the world is that you need to use policy and you need to use it at the right time to get the best recovery. mrs. maloney: thank you. this committee has been somewhat critical of your role on fsoc and charging that it is apparently not transparent enough or accountable enough to congress. it seems that it's accountable to congress and to stakeholders and i'll give one experience from my own experience. last year i sent you letter

suggest really four improvements to the process for designating companies as systemically important. and last month the fsoc adopted all four of those reforms as part of a package of improvements to the designation process. it seems to me from my experience that fsoc is willingly to engage to congress to respond to our concerns questions and try to find common ground. in this case, you actually approved the suggestions that i put forward. can you describe the process that fsoc went through to identify the reforms that were adopted last month? and do you think these reforms strike the right balance between providing companies with a fair, thorough and transparent process and preserving the fsoc's ability to identify, monitor and mitigate systemic risk? by the way, thank you for the fsoc decision on my concerns. secretary lew: congresswoman,

we thank you and other members of the committee for offering advice because fsoc is a young organization. it's roughly five years old. i think we have very solid rules that we have used from the very beginning, but as with any organization, we should remain open to what can we do to do even better in the future. the suggestions you made were a number of the sources of input. we opened the process so there was consultation both with congress and with outside parties. i think what changes demonstrate is that we very much want to have a process where parties know where they stand, where the flow of information back and forth is -- as efficient and effective as possible. i'd just note before the rule change, there was a great deal of communication already back and forthwith parties. it's not that we went from a world where there wasn't to a world where there is, but i think the rules changes are

good clarification going forward. mrs. maloney: lastly i'd like to ask you about germany france and italy's decision which was the decision to -- secretary lew: mr. chairman, if i could take a minute to respond. mr. hensarling: very brief moment. secretary lew: congresswoman, the issue about the asia infrastructure investment bank is an important one. there are obviously vast needs in asia and other parts of the world for infrastructure investment. our concern has always been not is there going to be an investment institution but will it adhere to the kinds of high standards that the international financial institutions have developed? will it protect the rights of workers, the environment, deal with corruption issues appropriately? our point all along has been that anyone joining needs to ask those questions at the outset. and i hope before the final commitments are made, anyone who lends their name to this

organization will make sure that the organization is appropriate. mr. hensarling: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman, mr. luetkemeyer. mr. lucas: you got your green -- mr. luetkemeyer: you got your green tie on. secretary lew: i spent eight years in the office of speaker o'neil so i was trained early. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, sir. we touched on a bit of issues. the chairman of the housing and insurance committee so the insurance stuff is what i want to talk about this morning. especially with regards to international capital standards and how they would be implemented here in the united states. i had a meeting this morning of a group of insurance folks and they're very concerned and i'm very thankful for your comment that you said insurance -- if i get this right -- should be held to insurance standards here in this country. so i assume from that comment that you want to regulate even companies that would not necessarily be big enough to fall under the international standards, continue to regulate them and insurance standards

that we have today. is that correct? secretary lew: well, congressman. the only companies that i'm referring to are the relatively few companies that we've designated under the fsoc process would then go on for federal oversight by the fed. states are doing the regulation on a day-to-day basis. mr. luetkemeyer: what you're saying you don't want to regulate at the federal level and the rest of the insurance companies with international capital standards that you put on for the big guys, is that what you're going to do? secretary lew: the standards i'm describing are the ones that apply to the firms that are subject to fed oversight which as you know -- mr. luetkemeyer: so you're going to regulate them differently, then? secretary lew: i think as i've heard from state regulators and from firms the state regulatory process in general does apply insurance standards to insurance companies. so i don't -- i think the

concern was that in making a federal designation, would the fed have the flexibility to apply an insurance standard rather than a bank standard to those designated firms? and i think with the passage of the collins amendment it's now clear that fed has that authority. so they will do so. the excel standards will reflect appropriate standards, which are being developed now so i can't tell you specifically what those standards will be. obviously there's a difference between what is a pure insurance product and what is a -- other forms of financial activity. mr. luetkemeyer: i guess the question is -- is it your intent to subject domestic insurers that are not regulated at the federal level to international capital standard, what would your answer be yes or no? secretary lew: the process of insurance regulation in general is done at the state level. mr. luetkemeyer: so therefore you're not going to do that? secretary lew: i think state

regulators, like federal regulators aspire to best practices so if there's best practices that's what i would hope the states would use. mr. luetkemeyer: ok. quick question with regards to the sifi designation situation. we have three companies -- i was in the banking business for 35 years. i cannot have for the life of me think they're important. how can they bring them economically bring our economy down? since you're chair of the fsoc, mr. secretary, what is the criteria you use to determine those three insurance companies are systemically important enough to the point where you would bring the entire economy down? secretary lew: congressman, in the case of each designation, there are hundreds of pages of analysis that support -- mr. luetkemeyer: do you have criteria? secretary lew: the question is, are there admission channels where the failure of one of those firms could lead to

broader financial problems? and in the cases of each designation, after a detailed review we reached the conclusion the designation was appropriate because that was the case. mr. luetkemeyer: ok. if you've designated them and we haven't really listed cite tearia. you're just looking at the whole thing as a whole is there a way to dedesignate? secretary lew: we have detailed analysis. it's hard to answer in 30 answers. mr. luetkemeyer: you say, well, it looks like it may. do you have a set of criteria that you check and list? secretary lew: i'd be happy to send you the public documents that we've gone through in detailed analysis where knows transmission channels were determined to present the risk. and the second part of your question, the core activities of these businesses are -- was the subject to designation. it's the scope of their activities and -- mr. luetkemeyer: one more

question. my time has almost expired here. this morning in one of the political papers here in town there was a headline that says that secret service wants $8 million to build a fake white house to train. now, mr. secretary, please tell me we are not going to spend $8 million to build a fake white house to train when we have movie sets we have all sorts of military bases around the world we can build virtual reality video games to do this. please tell me we are not going to spend $8 million to build a fake white house? secretary lew: i can't tell what you the secret service will do. i don't have responsibility for the secret service. it was moved from the department of treasury to homeland security. so it's not in my -- mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. chairman. how you doing, mr. secretary? happy st. patty's day.

secretary lew: and to you. mr. capuano: mr. secretary, i have an issue i want to pick a bone with you on. did you read secretary clinton's regular mail? secretary lew: no. i mean -- mr. capuano: did you see who was writing her? secretary lew: only if she needed me to look at something. mr. capuano: only after the fact. did you tuck her in at night? secretary lew: i certainly did not. mr. capuano: did you make sure she brushed her teeth? secretary lew: if -- mr. capuano: i think if we should go to the extreme absurdity. i think i made the point. secretary lew: you made your point. mr. capuano: have 47 members of congress, either branch, because i wouldn't want to knock one branch over the other, have they ever written to the f.s.b. to say don't talk to you? secretary lew: i'm not aware of it but -- mr. capuano: have 47 members of congress written to the

international insurance advisors and say not talk to the secretary of the treasury? secretary lew: i am not aware of it. mr. capuano: have they ever written to iciss and say that i can't believe the secretary of treasury is doing something to contain you? secretary lew: not to my knowledge. mr. capuano: i think that members of congress think you shouldn't be doing your job on talking to people on an international basis. i want to talk to you about fannie and freddie. since fannie and freddie went into receivership, they borrowed $87.5 billion from the taxpayers. very difficult, very risky. but since that time they paid back $225.5 billion. that's about a $40 billion profit give or take 20% rate of return. could you tell me what you've done with the $40 billion you've gotten back beyond what the taxpayers lent?

secretary lew: congressman, as you know, it is -- it becomes part of federal receipts and general fund. mr. capuano: that goes in the general fund and we congress and you the administration, the normal course -- we can spend it any way we want? secretary lew: as a practical matter, it's part of what's helped us reduce our overall -- mr. capuano: i think the other side has a problem with more receipts. i get that. it's come to the general fund for all intents and purposes and spent it on whatever we wanted. that's not the issue. that's a different debate. but that $40 billion, that's only the beginning. what has fannie and freddie been allowed to pay down on the $187 billion that they originally borrowed? secretary lew: so, congressman i think that the idea that they're kind of out of the woods is -- mr. cap withdrawno: i didn't ask that. i'm asking what happened to the money. secretary lew: they're still a federal guarantee behind fannie

and freddie. mr. capuano: which i appreciate. some of my colleagues don't. secretary lew: and the exposure that taxpayers have until there's housing finance reform -- mr. capuano: what kind of capital reserve have they built up? secretary lew: they have not built up a capital reserve. mr. capuano: because we are putting it in the general fund, right? secretary lew: taxpayers are ultimately responsible. mr. capuano: that's been the case since the 1930's, taxpayers ron the hook every time and they had a blip and the taxpayers stepped in as we promised we would do for 80 years and now we've been paid back. the question is, when are we going to stop using it as a piggy bank? we need to have a debate about he reforming fannie and freddie. if that's the case, what's thed a mfrlings' proposal on how to move forward? secretary lew: i think the important question is, how do you move forward on housing financing reform? we've very much wanted to move forward. we think it's an important provide or the. mrs. capito: have you submitted a --

mr. capuano: have you submitted a proposal? secretary lew: on the senate side we've been engaged in trying to think through with others. mr. capuano: but those aren't moving forward as we know. secretary lew: i agree progress has been slow. mr. capuano: how long will you hold fannie and freddie hostage? the reason i ask, it's not about them. it's about homeowners. you are not allowing them to capitalize. you are not allowing any funds to be left over from the housing trust fund. number three, you're basically submitting homeowners to an additional tax for the purposes of general revenue which doesn't sound fair to me. general revenue should be paid for by the general people. secretary lew: i don't agree with that analysis in terms of the impact on homeowners. i do think that there's a very serious question that as long as fannie and freddie are in conservatorship there is a public exposure. mr. capuano: you won't let them out. you won't let them pay off their debt. secretary lew: there is i think the need for housing finance reform in order to move beyond

the current state. mr. capuano: if they would lone me money and not let me pay back what would you call that mr. hensarling: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, chairman of the oversight investigations subcommittee. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you, mr. lew. just to follow-up on mr. capuano's questions, the international insurance advisors are not seeking nuclear weapons, are they? and in regard to making sure that hillary clinton brushes her teeth, you're not the tooth fairy, correct? but in regard to emails, you were the undersecretary of state for the management portion, right? secretary lew: i was deputy secretary of state. the undersecretary of state for management was another position. mr. duffy: maybe we can put up an organizational chart of the secretary of the department of state. you actually reported directly to hillary clinton is that correct? secretary lew: correct. mr. duffy: and it's fair to say there's many modes of communication but one of them

with the secretary was via email, right? secretary lew: correct. mr. duffy: it's your testimony today you never noticed that she wasn't sending email or you were corresponding with her via a dot gov account that you never realized it was a clinton email account? secretary lew: congressman i'm -- i can answer the same question again. mr. duffy: i'd like that. secretary lew: my general mode of communication with the secretary was meetings and phone calls. i did email with her from time to time. and i don't remember exactly how it showed up. mr. duffy: i want to be very patient. i want to ask, president obama has indicated this is going to be one of the most open and transparent governments we've ever seen. as one of his representatives i would ask you actually respond to the question which is -- did you ever notice that you were corresponding with secretary clinton on an account that was not a dot-gov account? secretary lew: congressman --

mr. duffy: yes or no? secretary lew: i always made sure i was corresponding with the right person. mr. duffy: listen, you're very good at this, not answering questions, and i appreciate the way you tap dance. i think everyone in the room understands my question and you're just not answering it. did you know that you were corresponding with secretary clinton on an account that was not a dot-gov account yes or no? secretary lew: congressman i don't remember giving it a lot of thought. mr. duffy: that was not the question. did you know you were corresponding with her on an email -- secretary lew: it's a long time ago. mr. duffy: are you saying you don't remember is that your testimony? is it your testimony you don't remember? secretary lew: i'm just telling you, i -- when i emailed with people -- when i email people i -- mr. duffy: you don't want to answer my question, mr. secretary. you know the question i'm asking and you're refusing to answer it. i guess what i'm assuming is you knew you were corresponding with her on an account that was not official account and i understand you don't want to lie to congress and i appreciate that and you don't want to be part of a news

story. i appreciate that. so you don't want to answer my question. but i think all of us here understand, i knew it was nonofficial account, i just don't want to tell you here, is that right? secretary lew: look, congressman. i always endeavored to do my business, you know, in an open way. mr. duffy: nonresponse. let me ask you. do you use for official business your official account or have you ever -- let me strike that -- have you ever used an nonofficial account for official business? secretary lew: i use it except -- and i follow all the mr. duffy: have you ever used a nongovernment account for official business? secretary lew: the only time i would use my personal account is for some reason i couldn't use it. mr. duffy: have you ever used a nongovernment account for official business? secretary lew: on occasion consistent with common practice. if i can't use official email i have. it's not at all a regular occurrence. mr. duffy: let me -- i think

this is an important issue. let me give you a quote and see if you can tell me who gave it. any authorized is a violation of our law and compromises our national security and our national defense requires that sensitive information be maintained in confidence to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions and our homeland. protecting information critical to our national security is the responsibility of each individual who is granted access to classified information. do you know who gave that quote? secretary lew: i do not know who gave that quote but you're going to tell me. mr. duffy: i'm going to tell me it was you. that was yours. i would hope that we have laws in place that apply to everyone in government, not just a few in government. secretary lew: to be clear classified information can't be communicated normal official email either. it has to be in a classified system. mr. duffy: do you suspect that hillary clinton email clinton email dot-com is as secure as

the dot-gov system? secretary lew: there are experts -- mr. duffy: your opinion possible? secretary lew: i'm not going to comment on something i don't have the knowledge. mr. duffy: being the operations guy, c.o.o., on the exit form that every state department employee is to sign, were you pretty certain that everyone who exited the state department would sign that appropriate documentation? secretary lew: i would assume it would be normal practice. mr. duffy: ok. i yield back. mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i was at another hearing. i walk in here and i'm confused. what's your title again? you are the secretary of what -- secretary lew: treasury. mr. meeks: treasury. and you came here to talk about the treasury and the economy, is that not correct? secretary lew: to the hearing on international financial institutions congressman.

mr. meeks: that's significant to the people of the united states, right? secretary lew: i think it's very important. mr. meeks: by the way maybe because our economy has recovered -- has it recovered substantially since 2008? secretary lew: it was recovered substantially. we're on the right path. we still have more work to do. the rest of the world is now looking to us as an example of how you bring yourself back? mr. meeks: and unemployment rate is now -- must be very high or -- secretary lew: well, as you know, in the mid fives. mr. meeks: so maybe other folks don't have anything to talk about in regards to the economy and what your job really is, so maybe they're trying to talk about something else since they have nothing of substance that affects the economy of our country, mr. secretary. secretary lew: i'm happy to discuss the economy as long as you'd like. mr. meeks: let's get back to what you're here for. i think being the secretary of

the treasury, it affects the american people how we're going. i think that's substantial. and for me i want to just ask some questions i think would be relevant. i know the ranking member was very involved and concerned about it. i think a few other members. and that's about anti-money laundering issues. a number of banks have faced heavy fines levied by the financial crimes enforcement network recently. mr. secretary, what should we make of the larger number of banks being deemed in noncompliance with our anti-money laundering regulations? secretary lew: congressman, the anti-money laundering rules are very important. it's the way we make sure that illicit activity is caught and stopped. i think that we have been aagreesively and effective in -- aggressive and effective in making the law well understood and underscoring the importance

of having compliance programs. i think that what we've seen in recent years is a kind of risk aversion developing where financial institutions have been, if anything, getting -- going beyond what may be required. they're not required to stop doing business, say, in a country where there are problems. they're required to have the kind of compliance program where they can catch problems and prevent having problematic transactions. so i think that there's kind of two halves to this. what is the part that we control? what is the part that financial institutions control? and we've worked hard to communicate both with financial institutions and internationally with our counterparts abroad to make sure that systems are in place where we can both have very tight standards on stopping illicit money activities but

also have a system where financial transactions can continue. mr. meeks: so do you think the banks are putting enough effort and resource noose this? secretary lew: look, i think they're putting resource noose it. i think they need to -- they need to look at what the proper compliance program is so they can remain engaged in important areas of commerce without opening the door to prohibitive activities. mr. meeks: use the phrase that, you know, you need to know your customer. you think the banks should also know their customers' customer? secretary lew: well, they're responsible for, you know, where the money is coming from and going to. and we -- banks know what are suspicious transactions that should raise attention. we work closely to make sure it is clear what is required of them. mr. meeks: let me -- in the

little time i have left, because, you know, i just came back from asia and i was looking at the president's proposals for t.p.p. and some of his trade agenda and there's things that are popping up and i know you had some questions already about currency manipulation and whether there should be a currency chapter in t.p.p. i didn't hear your answer but secretary lew: i didn't get much of a chance to answer. mr. meeks: go ahead, please. secretary lew: we are very much of the view that unfair currency practices has to be stopped. we're engaged in the multilateral processes at g-20, at the i.m.f. we engage intensely on a bilatlal -- bilateral basis to bring up market determined exchange rates and only using domestic tools for domestic purposes, not to gain unfair advantage. my view on whether it belongs in a trade agreement is separate from how aggressive we

are on pushing back on practices that we think are unacceptable. mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce, chair of the foreign affairs committee. mr. royce: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. secretary lew, good to see you again. secretary lew: good to see you. mr. royce: we are just back from a trip to india, taiwan. i want to give you a quick read in terms of some of the issues you are working on. we had a good meeting with the prime minister modi and the momentum there is headed in the right direction. last week the indian parliament approved this new bill that raises the ownership caps for foreign insurers, for example, to 49%. while also allowing foreign reinsurers to open branches in india. now, that's long overdue. it's definitely good news. in china, the news is a little more ambiguous and it was clear from our visit to shanghai that

american businesses continue to expand in china just as china -- you can read the headlines here -- you know, have that appetite for investment and real estate and even tech companies like lift and snapchat. that continues to rise. but u.s. firms continue to compete on an unlevel playing field in china with very serious limits on ownership and -- ownership there the regulatory pressures are significant. china recently introduced this bank technology, rules and draft counterterrorism law. i know they say it's on hold, but they say it's scheduled in due time. so i need to ask you about that. it's definitely a move in the wrong direction. it would force u.s. firms to use domestic chinese technology vendors, as you know. it would limit cross-border data flows. it would exappropriate intellectual property as a result of this law.

and you would have a lot less access for u.s. firms. one of the other troubling aspects of it is it would require -- it would require our technology firms especially financial services, to hand over encryption keys, the pass codes to help protect data and would install those security back doors to give chinese authority surveillance access. this is a new challenge. i want to ask you about that. and i also want to ask you about the progress on the bilateral investment treaty in china. you got 18 rounds of negotiations that have taken place and, of course, my focus is on what could be done in terms of this arbitration issue which i think would give us a real chance to make sure that we got a mechanism outside of the court system there to

resolve differences if we can push hard enough on that. so if you could tell me about and and maybe ownership caps and the agreement, turn the time over to you here. secretary lew: well, thank you congressman. i was also in india recently and met with the finance ministry and with the prime minister and was encouraged at the direction they're moving in, both in terms of opening up markets but also in terms of making clear for american businesses how tax issues will be resolved and other things have been a real obstacle. long way to go. mr. royce: but how about the arbitration issue in china? secretary lew: so on china you raised the issue of the technology requirements. as i think you know, we have made very clear that we think that this is a very problematic set of proposals that they put forward. i, together with the secretary of state and the u.s. trade representative, wrote to the chinese leadership to make clear that we thought they

needed to stop that from taking effect. i have engaged personally with my counterpart on it. i think they're very, very troubling. this is not the first issue to come up. the anti-monopoly law last year was similarly troubling. what i can say is we are engaging on it and if they -- if they want to maintain the kind of progress that we're making in the u.s.-china relationship they have to hear the concerns we're raising. that can only be done by bringing the issues to bear and through the channels to be able to communicate effectively back and forth. on the bit they are in a matter of days i think, certainly a matter of weeks, supposed to be providing the first major documentation which will be their so-called negative list, the businesses that -- mr. royce: i'm familiar with that. i'd just like to get back to arbitration. secretary lew: yeah. mr. royce: you need to

strenuously push this concept because if these things get decided in the court in china that's not a fairway to do it. if you can have third-party arbitration, you can have these commercial settlements handled effectively. is that going to be part of the agreement? secretary lew: congressman, i have to check on the arbitration issue. i will say in general the engagement on the bit is a question is -- can china rise to the standards high enough that meets our requirements so we can enter into a bit? hopefully it's an attractive enough proposition they will rise to that standard. if not there won't be a bit. mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. secretary. for this appearance today. mr. secretary, let's talk for just a moment about dodd-frank. i believe it to be an exceedingly important piece of legislation. would you kindly give some indications as to how well it's

performing and some indication as to how dodd-frank could have made a difference when we went through the 2008 crisis? as you know, a.i.g. was styled an insurance company. could you please elaborate to some degree? secretary lew: congressman, i think we have made an enormous amount of progress, making our financial system and the global financial system safer and therefore the economy safer. we have taken action that raises the capital held by banks so they're able to -- and financial institutions that are significant so that they are able to absorb the risk that they're taking on. we have put in place consumer protections that didn't exist before to prevent the kind of practices that kind of metastasized in the prefinancial crisis days

through the subprime lending problem. i think if you look at the kind of back end, when institutions hit a difficult time, we've put in place resolution practices through both procedures like orderly liquidation authority and orderly liquidation fund to make sure that insured -- insurers like the fdic can manage without having to turn to taxpayers for a -- the kind of support that was required in 2008-2009. i think internationally we worked to try and bring global standards up to where u.s. standards now are. i know this committee asks a lot of questions about the f.s.b. well, the f.s.b. fundamental lisa way for us to drive the conversation internationally so it won't just be the united states that has high standards but there will be high global standards which is so important. i think we still have a lot more work to do. i think that the idea that you

ever finish is probably not attainable because the financial system doesn't stop moving. it doesn't stop evolving. the next problem won't be exactly what it was in 2007-2008. it's why we ask questions about things like money market funds and asset managers and other things, not because we assume that there's a problem but because we know that if there is something that presents the kind of risk that should get our attention, we should ask questions in advance. the fact there is an fsoc the fact there is a council that brings together the regulators and authority to ask the question what should we do to protect financial stability, it didn't exist before. we now have that. we have an annual report that lists in detail what we the concerns are. i think the system is more safe than before. mr. green: the consumer financial protection bureau

one piece of the puzzle, can you give us an indication how important it is? secretary lew: congressman if you look at the work they've done, you look at the clarity with which mortgage documents are now prepared so that an individual middle-class person working person can take out an mortgage can understand the transaction they're -- the fact you can't do low dock, no doc loans, fees that are hidden, costs explode in a way you didn't understand when you were signing on to a loan product, i think they have done enormously powerful work in that and many other areas. i think notwithstanding the critique in some of the halls here, if you go and -- to the communities, both of consumers and institutions that they deal with, there's a lot of respect for the quality of work that they've done. mr. green: how important are living also for sifis?

secretary lew: living wills are important. living wills for institutions actually give you the ability to know if they were to hit the crisis point, do they have the ability to be -- to work out their problems on their own? it's why the review of living wills is such a serious piece of business and it's hard. these are complicated organizations, and the fact it's taking some time to get them hammered out is -- shouldn't be particularly surprising. having them in place will make the system incredibly more safe. mr. green: and you've indicated that all legislation -- and you've not said this directly -- but legislation can be improved upon. are you aminnable to working with congress to making improvements? secretary lew: congressman, i've always been open to working with congress to make the legislative changes that would improve financial oversight, improve the soundness of our system. what i haven't been open to is questions about whether the basic approach should be

re-evaluated or reversed. mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas. luke lurke thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. we've discussed a wide variety of topics today. secretary lew: we always do. mr. lucas: which is always a good use of time and gains insight. i'd like to focus issues that impact the viability of my district and the country. rarely do i quote researchers at harvard, but recently a report came out, a study looking at the effect of dodd-frank and recent changes in the community banks quote, market share, since implementation of dodd-frank and even looking back before that since 2008. and it was a little bit alarming in that it noted that the community bankers market share, which had been declining since 2008 had actually accelerated. some might even use the phrase doubled since it was enacted. dodd-frank was designed to protect all of us from the too

big institutions that many of us would agree in this room almost brought the economy to its knees in 2008. but with the implementation of dodd-frank, it seems that the small institutions call them community banks a million $10 billion, $50 billion whatever, the smaller institutions seemed to be squeezed the most by what's going on and have the greatest barriers to try to continue their business or enter the marketplace. so i guess my question to you, mr. secretary, is -- and save me a little bit of time for one more question -- my question to you is, based on what we're seeing happening in the community banking segment of the financial markets, is it time either for regulators to use some of the flexibility given to them in dodd-frank or perhaps if that's not possible it's time legislatively for congress to respond and try to provide some relief to the community banks the people who didn't cause the problem that dodd-frank was the answer to, or as we say in oklahoma is it

time to save the people we saved? secretary lew: congressman, if you looked at dodd-frank and the implementation of dodd-frank, there has been a great deal of attention paid to treating community banks differently and appropriately so from the larger money centered banks. i think as you noted in your question, the trend of consolidation preceded the passage of dodd-frank and i haven't read the harvard study you're describing, but i'd be happy to give you a response after i looked at it. mr. lucas: please do. secretary lew: you would have to look at that trend and see if would accelerated because it was accelerating before. not just at the smaller level, it's happened for not necessarily good reasons. you had a lot of troubled institutions that had to be taken over. so i think the challenge we have is to always be mindful of the fact you can't treat main street bank, $5 billion bank, the same as a regional bank or

the same as a money center bank. we tried not to. we're always attentive how we can do better and we have a lot of flexibility and the -- >> we will leave the treasury secretary's testimony here. you can continue watching it live online or you can see it later on our website. go to c-span.org. at the top of the hour the u.s. house expected to return for legislative work. we'll have live coverage here on c-span. before we get to that, though, our companion network, c-span3, just wrapped up coverage of the house subcommittee on the budget. the head witness was clancy. most recently, last week, two agents were caught driving drunk through a live bomb investigation. the agency -- the agents apparently drove right over the suspected bomb. here is director clancy responding to questions about that incident. >> give us a picture what happened and then i'd like to talk to you a little bit about the protocols that may or may not have been violated and what

protocols are in place to cover the situation here. alcohol is part of the stressful world that an awful lot of people live in. my courtroom, there was a cartoon on the wall that where the judge is addressing a young trial lawyer and he says, you need to know the most important two tenants of the law relative to trial work -- caffeine by day, alcohol by night. it was meant to be a joke. it's actually a tragic truth that in stressful jobs those two -- those two become a major part of how people get through the day. but alcohol, as we all know, it messes up your judgment and we've got -- there's got to be protocols that address this and we have to deal with it because it's part of the life we have and we are protecting the most important position on the face of the earth. that's your job. whoever sits in that white house, he is the -- he or she

is the most important person on earth politically in this world. more power than anybody else. and therefore more enemies. so talk to me about what happened and let's talk a little bit about protocols. director clancy: thank you, mr. chairman. on march 4 2015, our understanding is that two senior level special agents came to the white house. the initial reports -- i did not hear this incident until monday. so this was on wednesday night. i found out monday. once i found out monday and what i heard initially the initial reports from an anonymous report as you stated two senior level special agents had crashed into the white house and they were inebriated. i had not heard about that. i asked my staff if they had heard about it. they had not heard about it.

i asked them to get as much information they could on the events. and then there wasn't a lot of information available, but we decided -- i decided to immediately send it over to the department of homeland security office of the inspector general. i thought it was very important that we have an independent investigation, that there would be no perception at all that we were involved, that we would not start doing any interviews. we would give that case, that investigation to the o.i.g. i will also say that i brought my staff in on monday. and we discussed why i didn't know prior to monday of this event. we had a good stern talk about that. and then instructed the staff to go out to their management to ensure these events -- any

event of misconduct or operational has to be relayed up the chain. i'll say it's going to take time to change maybe some of this culture. there's no excuse for this information not to come up the chain. that's going to take time because i'm going to have to build trust with our work force. the best way for me to work -- earn that trust with our work force is by my actions. now, i know there's -- i'm very eager to hear the results of this investigation. i don't know how long it will take, but i am committed to due process. what i have done is removed those two senior level agents to nonsupervisory positions outside. they're not working at the white house. they're outside their offices and we will await the findings of the o.i.g.

>> and that hearing just concluded. you can see it in its entirety in the c-span video library at c-span.org. house is about to gavel debate on two e.r.a. science related bills. votes expected later this afternoon. live coverage when the house gavels right here on c-span. the senate is also in session today. they just failed to advance both anti-human trafficking bills. you can see the senate live on c-span2. and now live to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain reverend john randalls victory life church, lubbock, texas. the chaplain: holy and most high god, we come before you, grateful for your gift of life. all good things come fro