and executive committees. thank you. ms. mcdaniel: thank you. the adoption has been moved. do i hear a second? it is moved that sentiment that 2018 rnc budget. we will proceed with the budget. aye.e signify by saying ayes have it. bob just said no. did you hear that? i heard you. the ayes have it. the 2018 budget is adopted. thank you for taking on this role and for delivering your first committee chair. for the final committee report, i do not want to recognize him, but will recognize him. patriotsearing this jersey which is inappropriate attire. it is not part of our to corum, ron, ok? kaufman fornize ron the purpose of giving his first report. >> thank you. electede committee was in nashville, we have met three times. with the help of staff we are prepared an rfp that was sent in january to an extended list of cities. we included documentation to help them submit the best possible bids and also economic impact studies that demonstrate the economic success of our past conventions. in particular, from clevela

the republicans on had committee said no. does that seem like careful vetting? >> i definitely believe it does. there are thousands of pages of documents that a few members of congress and several staff members of the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee have had the opportunity to review who have top secret clearance. and i think this is ready for the american people to consider. i definitely think that in the course of this investigation director ray and other members of the bureau will have an opportunity to testify, maybe in a classified setting, maybe in a public setting depending upon the questions to be asked to give their point of view about this. i also think it is very important that there be independent reviews of what's happening in the bureau and that we not depend just on the bureau's opinion whether they would like to see this released or not. >> absolutely. obviously reporters are all for transparency. according to reporting, though, the president has been telling associates that on the phone and in

gary's office and not much input from the committee. the question is what would have taken to get that majority vote to get it out of committee. in this case, there was enough pressure coming from the white house, other senior republicans in the house, even speaker ryan jumped into the fray last week and suggested the memo was proof of malfeasance. i think there was enough of a groundswell. the question is not again why the republicans moved heaven and earth to release this memo. -- if tellinging the full story is the goal here, the same process was not all of, the same mentality applied to the democratic response or the underlying fisa application itself which runs about 60 pages. host: if i understand it correct, there was the initial test and then three following requests. when you make those three following request, you have to present the same burden of evidence or is it a rubberstamp at that point? guest: the same standard applies to the reauthorization. the way fisa works, it is temporary authorization. you don't get to surveilla

affect what wey are willing to release an hour committee. -- in our committee. demonstrate on one level, the difficulty of running and investigation when you have multiple cooks in the kitchen. because, if we were doing this ideally, we would be doing it in concert with a common strategy where we would place the investigative interest at the -- you the very outset may remember, we've had these breakfasts now for more than one year, i was hoping we would join this -- we would do this as a joint congress and senate investigation, like the 9/11 commission, because it would prevent competition or conflict with each other, and make sure the investigation was done in a more orderly way. that was not possible for a number of reasons, so we have to make the best of a difficult situation. so, i do not think i can really tell you what he said specifically, or what i think ought to be asked for him -- asked of him in the senate. in the interest of being complete, anyone that was either in a position to shed light on the trump campaign and its relationship to russians durin

the board committee if they do not agree or wants to amend what ethics proposed, the board committee will make amendments and continue it to the call of the chair typically. the clerk will send the ordinants to commission. the ethics commission may pass it. they may offer something else. it will come back to committee. it could be a back and forth. ultimately, both bodies need to pass the same ordinance. >> what would happen if we had a joint meeting of both parties? >> that is an interesting idea. as far as i know, that has never happened. i don't think there would be a legal problem with that happening with each body making its own separate vote on the proposed ordinance. >> we see that. we see joint meetings between the planning commission on shadow issues. the commission secretaries they have and they have the vote and then they raise the shadow limits unfortunately. >> the board has held joint meetings with the commission years ago. it is definitely something you could do. >> i would like to put that out there, particularly insofar as there -- i don't mean to point fingers at an

he said we don't talk about committee business. we tried to remind him he did talk about committee business when speaking to fox news today and on friday. he did not want to comment as he left this meeting. but we did -- we do expect that the republicans will have voted to send this memo to the president's desk, releasing the democratic memo, giving the president five days to decide whether or not to object to its release or allow its release because several of the republicans going in told us they were going to vote in support of releasing the democratic memo, despite last week voting to block the democratic memo. they said at that time they had just seen it. they wanted time for the full house to review it through a classified process. they did not agree to hold back the nunes memo release, to release it at the same time as the democratic memo to offer the public two points of view as the democrats were pushing for, but we do expect today that the republicans will have agreed to send the nunes memo to the president's desk. severa

sit on the budget committee. and the reason we did this is we again looked at where the bottlenecks occur. it appeared to us that there is a disconnect in the current format where those that are drafting the plan and crafting the plan are not then responsible for implementing the plan. and so the idea here would be you have the appropriations committee, the ways and means and finance committees engaged early on in crafting that plan and then going forward and carrying it out. so you're creating buy-in at the beginning of the process. and finally, as matt noted, credible, reliable information is paramount to any and all of these efforts. the budgets and appropriations process overall. we would like to see investment in and support of those institutions, congressional budget office, the joint committee on taxation, the government accountability office. recognizing also that in many ways we've just expanded their scope of work, so we want to make sure they have the resources needed to carry out our charge. and so th

if you look at what this house committee has been doing and compare that to the senate committee, what are the differences? the house intelligence committee and their investigation of the potential coordination between the trump campaign from associates and the kremlin, their investigations has essentially devolved into a partisan slugfest. behind the scenes, they are doing serious work. they have gotten tons of documents, they are brought in powerful witnesses who are on hand for many of these controversies. the enormous, dramatic fight between devin nunes and adam schiff has overshadowed that threatened some ways to potentially delegitimize it. on the senate side, the senate intelligence committee, headed by a republican, working in tandem with mark warner, the top has not had that whatsoever. richard burr has kept his head down through this, he has not publicly sniped with mark warner, the two of them appeared together when they are talking about matters related to the investigation. in any investigation like this there is always tension between republicans and democrats trying to w

i'd also like to thank and work done the on the committee on the committee on house administration, thrick the ranking member, mr. brady, he has been a great friend and colleague over o the last decade and i appreciate being able to work closely on this issue with him. . both the c.a.a. reform act reflect the dedication and commitment of a bipartisan group of members, including representatives byrne, speier, brooks and deutch who want to ensure this institution remains worthy of the trust placed in it by the american people. i also want to thank representatives desantis, love, comstock, and chris smith for their contributions to this bill. as i have said previously and will state again unequivocally, there is no place for sleafment or any type of harass -- sexual harassment or any type of harassment, period, in the u.s. house of representatives. there is no secret, the culture on capitol hill is unique. while there are hundreds of employing offices, we should all share the common goal of creating an effective work environments, environments that are safe, productive, collegial and most imp

committee. senator, there was bad weather. thank you for making your way through it to be with us tonight. >> it's worth it. i'm glad to be with you. >> you're a good man to do that. is it true that the house members of the intel committee from the gop didn't let you guys see the memo? not everyone ranking member senator burr. republican. >> that's true. we have not, no one has seen the memo on this side. the way the intelligence committee works on the senate we know it doesn't work on the house side from what devin nunes has done. he was sanctioned by his own commit to have after the russian investigation. he comes back and sarts this investigation on his own and won't reveal sources. we have nine different intelligence agencies that we cross check with to make sure that we're all in sink before anything is said, leased or afwreeed upon. we don't come from the senate side unless we have agreement and bipartisan way. they're working in this house intelligence strictly on partisan. on a partisan

committee. i worked for the share name and he worked with the ranking minority leader and for me, it was an amazing time in the process had just begun but there was so much earnestness on both sides to work together in such a tremendous participation in the bipartisan committee. i know a lot of people get impatient with those that are a little older calling up the house in the days of the past but h worked together on a budgt then. there was the chairman of the appropriations committee. they would function at the level that they did years ago and so i think underlining people can work across differences and we hope that this will be a model for others. let me close by thanking all participants and we will welcome you later but we have a lot of participants at the table here with us today. i want to thank in particular the panelists for their appearance today and i want to recognize especially susan who is our leader and project director and others on the team, mike, pat field, the facilitat faci

the top democrat on the committee spoke to reporters. >> good evening, the house intelligence committee voted to read them i nor -- release the minority response to the minions nunes memo. this will dispel the majority of the inaccuracies in the memo. we have also asked the support of our transmittal to the white house that unlike the process that was used with the majority memo, the department of justice and fbi be consulted, that they have the opportunity to vet any information they may be concerned about in our memo in terms of sources and methods. we want to make sure that those who are in the best information to vet that do so. the justice department and fbi have had our member -- memo several days. we want to make sure any reductions that are made are fully explained to our committee by the fbi or department of justice and likewise, by the white house. we want to make sure the white house does not redact our memo for political purposes and obviously, that is a deep concern. the majority found themselves in a insupportable position when they released a memo and refused to release t

and that it's a committee. and writing by committee takes more time. and i'm aware of that. my work schedule and other obligations allow me to have the time to spend to devote to this committee. >> great. i just wanted to make sure. i think eyes wide open is really important because the amount of time that this takes and the amount of intensity and the amount of scrutiny and the amount of importance of this body requires that level of commitment. so, if you're prepared to make that commitment, i think that the your background and qualifications are up to the task and you have, as i said, nice recommendations from the nominating organisations. so i appreciate that. any other committee members have any other questions? >> no. >> ok. seeing none, i think what we need to do is hear from the second -- yes. the second applicant. and then we can take public comment. so, thank you, scott. if there is any other questions, we'll call you back up. >> thank you. >> ok. and so now let's hear from our second applicant, ms. betty packard. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> and shall

on the committee as well. i'm here this morning to provide a brief overview with our policy staff, senior policy analyst and policy analyst working quite hard over the past year to put together an ordinance of needed changes we believe to help with responsive government in the city and county of san francisco. we're happy to respond and address questions that committee members and others might have, but our primary policy focus as a commission over the past year was develop an anti corruption and ordinance order, this came in response to two grand jury reports and something the commission spent a fair amount of time on with members of the public and others to address the perception or reality of pay to play politics, pay and play that can be perceived of how decisions are made and on a day-to-day basis. the goal is to help reduce potential that political donors, money in politics is making a decision when it comes to governmental decision making and we're looking to enact new restrictions to support that end a

i've spoke to two intelligence committee democrats and they dispute nunes' characterization of the committeene of them said he is mischaracterizing what he said. that's not what he remembers them saying and now democrats are push foing for the transcri of mccabe before the committee. they want that record set straight. paul ryan, in addition to expressing support for the nunes memo being released, is calling for the committee to release the democratic memo, the democratic side of this story in effect as well. again, the key line here, two democrats on the house intelligence committee disputing nunes and his description, what is a central claim of the nunes memo, what andrew mccabe told them about the role of the dossier in initiating this warrant on carter page. >> a very important point indeed. the statement from the speaker, paul ryan, which we now have, you're absolutely right, he wants that democratic minority report released as soon as it's scrubbed, presumably, to make sure there is no classified information there. he also says, i also have serious concerns with the practice of using p

he is broader committee together. there seems to be brought agreement among the majority and minority members that his the broadand indication of privilege is insupportable. the majority is going to want to do conferring with her leadership about next steps. certainly it will be our recommendation to our leadership that we initiate contempt proceedings. i hope that we have a meeting on the minds. i expect that we will, judging from the comments of my about the necessity of compelling answers to these questions. differently.out because of the wholesale refusal to answer any of these questions, it seems there is no other course left open to us. >> there's criminal contempt, civil contempt, what is the pathway forward here? >> i think this is going to be the subject of discussions from this point forward. what type of contempt proceedings to we pursue? what type of remedies do we ask for? historically, when contempt proceedings have been initiated, it results in litigation and a settlement. in which case you get answers

the authorizing committees. we also prepare estimates when requested at other stages of the legislative process. the budget act directs cbo to give priority to committee, particularly the house and senate budget committee. though we try, given our staffing, we are generally not able to satisfy requests for cost estimates that do not come from the budget committees, the committees of jurisdiction over the legislation, or the house or senate leadership. now to the content of our products. i'll start with the rules governing the libaselines and tn the cost estimates. section 257 of the balance budget emergency control act of 1985 defines the baseline and sets out the rules for its construction. for mapd b toir spendatory spen revenues, the touchstone is that we assume the current laws will remain in place and they operate as they're set in statute. for individual income tax, we assume the changes set in law will occur. there are, however, three important differences or exceptions and they come with tradeoffs. let m

every committee that looks at this seems to have a slightly different focus. be moree committee may than anybody else is looking at the justice department and the fbi wrote in the early stages of the trump investigation and their handling of matters related to secretary clinton, too. how tied hard to know together they are, and at some point that political currents become unalterable. this case has reminded me of and maybe especially the special counsel side of it, there is some capacity here force apprise. covers heath issues of law and justice at "usa today." thanks so much. : my pleasure. journal,"gton saturday morning, kelly: will join us to assess the house memo and the impact of the mueller investigation. also michael allen will share his views on the release of the intelligence committee memo and intentional fisa abuses. watch "washington journal" live at seven eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. night, former speech writer for george w. bush david cracy."d his book "trumpo "trumpocracy" is a book about the study of power. this is a study of

he came into committee and said, i will not answer. neither in league with the white house or in the -- in league with breitbart anymore. i guess that means we deal with this is way we should. we give him a subpoena on the spot. that same week, we had corey lewandowski come in. he gave an even more absurd answer because he said he would not answer the same questions been in wooden answer and you would not answer anything after the day he left the campaign. he was never part of the administration. there is no claim of executive privilege, road. he said i'm not prepared to answer these questions today. the committee said, oh, ok. please come back when you find it convenient. knows a peanut, no talk about subpoena, no talk about contempt. with steve bannon, when he came back, he had a list of 25 questions that were written by the white house of for him to answer. that was all he would be able to answer. specificso into the of questions, except to say, when you walk through them, you could see both how purposefully and hopefully specific a

chairman, as a member of the appropriations committee representative on this, on the budget committee, i appreciate that. thank you, i field back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentleman from pennsylvania who is still coming down from his-- from soaring with his super bowl champion eagles. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate you pointing that out. mr. hadley, good to see you again. you've asked about the tax cuts and jobs act and impact and i'd like to drill down a little more how that's impacted our forecast. from my perspective and my view what i've seen in the district that that i represent it's had a tremendous impact on the short-term and i believe a long-term impact we've seen, of course, companies like home depot, fedex, starbucks, fulton financial in my area, who are providing pay raises, bonuses to their employees specifically because of the tax reform. and starting this month, millions of americans will be going home or already starting to go home with more, with a bigger paycheck because of the tax cuts and jobs act. so, specifically, what i'd like

staff between the house budget committee and the senate budget committee. it wasn't -- isn't that the original incarnation of the cbo? >> i'm not sure about what the original intent was, but certainly that characterization is right, that we're here only to assist the budget committees. and the rest of the congress. >> i -- my reading of history tells me the senate found it beneath them to share a staff with the house budget committee so once they insisted on having their own staff, we insisted on having our own staff and you were left to advise us both on the side. my experience, you talk about hiring people irrespective of political outlook, and i think that's very challenging. my experience with cbo directors, i tend to learn more about their politics when they're gone than while they're there. we see a lot in hindsight, but i look at -- i'm reading from a cbo cost estimate of the american health care act, and the top line says this, cbo and jct estimate enacting the american health care act would reduce deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and

we're if you see something coming out of a committee and i will say three committees almost. you have foreign relations. you have armed sfrs a eed servi intel. something happened and they are playing politics. that's what i would tell you. >> people have heard that. that's what the show is about is giving you the chance to speak to people. i know you from your time as governor. you tried to bring that to congress in the senate, bipartisan. standing against your own when you need to. standing with your side when you have to. you stand up and tell the democrats shay should have respected the president. you have to be able to see what works and what doesn't. the vice president of the united states goes down where you are going to be in a knife fight for your seat and this is what he says. run this sound of vice president pence. >> i looked him in the eye and i told him, i said joe the people, the mountain state are counting on you. i said let's get this tax cut done together. owe vo joe voted no. joe voted no to give your families money. >> forget about the fact that's not true

significantly, the rules committee suggested amendment from the rules committee, you will see in quotes on the page of this item, it is that unless specifically authorized by law, no student shall be charged a fee for his or her participation in educational activities and to ensure that all have access to educational extracurricular and co-curricular activities. students shall not be charged to perform recitals of exhibitions of student work, except they may be charged for athletic competitions. that is the amended language as recommended by the rules committee. >> thank you. i need a motion and a second please on this. >> you're right. so i am going to -- we have a lot of public comment on this. i have over 50 speakers on that. and so -- >> [cheering] >> so what i would like to do, i imagine many of you have something similar to say, so instead of, what i'd like to do is call the names, if you can come up. i want to try to wrap up this section of the public comment by 8:30. so i'm not going to put a time limit on you, but if you have something a little bit different or more to say than

this is a person on the intelligence committee and as a republican. he doesn't know basic things about the case. he also had to talk about adam schiff, and i think carter page and others would disagree with that as well. there have been chairs on the republican and democratic side of the intelligence committee who i think have been known for rigor and integrity and good work product. mike rogers comes to mind, for example, republican chair of that committee. and based on everything i've seen and based on the things i know about how the world works, devin nunes is not that person. >> there's been a long history of bipartisanship in the house intelligence committee. i want to point out, though, before those two tweets this morning, the president also said he was watching "fox & friends," saying, thank you, "fox & friends," for exposing the truth. perhaps that's why your ratings are so much better than the competition. he's saying he got so much of this information from fox & friends. other democrats have issued their response to the republican memo. do

that has been amended into the committee version of the acao. so before i go through the changes that are in the new staff's recommended amended version, i'll just mention that our recommendation due today is to accept this amended version, to vote to approve those changes, and additionally, to vote to place this item on the june 2018 ballot. you could also accept the changes and not vote to put it on the ballot and merely approve the amendment that the budget and finance committee made yesterday and basically adopt that version and then allow the board to continue through their process with that, but staff is recommending that you vote to place this on the ballot. so if i may, i will refer to the memo on this item, agenda item four, to walk you through the major changes. >> all right. mr. for the record, fellow commissioners, i suggest following procedures. we have the ordinance itself, and we have the various amendments beginning at page two that we -- since we've adopted the ordinance, and now we have these proposed amendments, i would sugges

this is a great committee. i'm sad to see it's broken down like this. >> what message will it send if the president does not release the democratic memo? >> well, this is just again -- this has been a partisan exercise. that's the whole problem. the republican memo and the democratic memo and this should have never been released to begin with. >> congressman charlie dent. thanks so much for being with us. enjoy your victory, enjoy the parade. go celebrate, we're very, very happy for you. have a great day. thank you, congressman. >> fly eagles fly. fly eagles fly. thank you. >> go away. >> you sound really happy. >> it's been the whole show. come on. i've been good. >> well, it is the news. >> true, there's that. fair point. >> there are other headlines. here it is. democrats want their rebuttal memo released. will that happen today? we ask a democratic member of the house intelligence committee. that's next. samsung galaxy phones get a samsung galaxy s8 free. yahoooo! ahoooo! plus, unlimited family plans come w

committee on the arts. we just learned we shared an adolescent involvement in music. he is also a former teenage musician. [laughter] andrea: before serving in the legislature, the congressman served with the u.s. attorney's office in l.a. for six years. he has six years as a federal prosecutor. he is a graduate of stanford university and harvard law school. he and his wife eve -- yes, adam children, aave two daughter alexa and a son elijah. we know the council is completely nonpartisan and has an open invitation, and has continued to invite the republican chairman of house intelligence, and he is welcome at any time to come to one of these sessions. i want to start with something that is certainly being here, and also overseas. it involves our reputation abroad, and also a threat that was outlined more broadly to the intelligence committee on the senate side, by the intelligence leaders, by the dni, which is russian interference through cyber and social media. we are seeing, according to the hamilton proje

that they know that republicans are heading this committee.he committee's authority or responsibility? >> i don't think it undermines the authority or the responsibility, i think you're going to get a certain amount of leeway from a republican majority that you're just not going to get from a democrat majority. that's no surprise. i mean, even the contempt issue. when president obama was in office, there were serious contempt issues raised by the republicans when they had the majority, but the department of justice, not surprisingly, wouldn't execute on those. they wouldn't take any steps, even in rather obvious situations. so we've seen this play out for both parties and hear it is implicitly, although not explicitly, playing out again. >> well, so it seems like you say, yes, because they're playing it to their advantage. if it was a democrat, if it was democrats, they would be playing it to their advantage and you're saying the republicans are playing it to their advantage. there's nothing wrong with saying yes. >> i think i said, each side

he has brought our committee together. there is large agreement that his testimony and the breathtakingly broad invocation of privilege is insupportable. i think the majority is going to confer with leadership about next steps. certainly it will be our recommendation to leadership that initiate contempt proceedings. i hope we have a meeting on the minds. i expect we likely will, judging by the comments my colleagues in the majority have made publicly about the necessity of compelling answers to these questions. had today turned out differently, a remedy might be in order. but given mr. bannon's answers to these questions, it seems there is no other course left open to us. >> there is criminal contempt, civil contempt, inherent contempt -- what is the pathway forward, and which do you prefer? rep. schiff: this will be the subject of discussion from this point forward. what types of contempt proceedings do we pursue? what type of remedies do we ask for? historically when contempt proceedings have been initiated, it results i

committee, and the committee, but the president has indeed signed off on that.tting up a confrontation, an escalation for the first time with his own fbi director, christopher wray, who he appointed just last june. and has been on the job for six months. he, of course, said he had grave concerns about the release of this memo. but we are being told the president has authorized the release of this, and it will come out later today, most likely from the house committee. now, the president has not spoken on this, but he is meeting with some north korean defectors at this hour. so he could be asked about this. so this is happening this morning. as we have been expecting, the president, of course, believes that this will help discredit the russia investigation. that's what he has said himself, publicly and privately. he believes it is going to expose prejudice in the top ranks of the fbi. so that is why he authorized the release of this 3 1/2 page memo he read himself here, with his advisers and has been considering it for the last several days. after the state of th

can i get a report from the committee as a whole? vice president cooke. >> i'll do that at the next board meeting. >> okay. a report from curriculum and program committee, please, commissioner norton. >> yes. the curriculum and program committee met on the 17th of january . we had two informational items. the first was a report on the current state of our language pathways, which was a good -- it was good to declare where we are, where everything is. i think we all continue to have concerns about these programs and, you know, where they are, the student assignments issues related to them, the facilities issues related to them, so it was good to get a -- a good data and update to them. we also had a great report on african american history in sfusd curriculum which was really extensive and i -- you know, i can't do it justice in a board report, but you should look at the powerpoint which i think all of you got. there's just some really great things going on. i one thing i will highlight is the class at mission for african american gir

, a response to the committee's republican memo from a few weeks ago.washington, you've had more opportunity to go over the memo from the democrats. what other thoughts do you have? >> listening to chairman nunes at the cpac conference, i'm struck by his assertion that the schiff memo did not rebut anything in his original memo. i think he's wrong in that the schiff memo rebuts the premise of the nunes memo, the premise having been that surveillance -- fisa-derived surveillance on carter page was predicated on the steele dossier. what the schiff memo does, in exacting detail, is make clear that that was not the case. not only was the steele dossier not a primary source, it was one of many sources. the department of justice and the fbi were also candid and forthcoming with the foreign intelligence surveillance court about christopher steele, about the fbi's previous relationship with him, about the political motivations of the people who funded his research, and the reason for the fbi having terminated christopher steele as a source. so if you put that a

8th, 2018 policy committee meetings. >> ok. so we had a meeting last week, most of which you got the highlights today. we did a big dive into the budget and we got to talk about short falls, funding and we went through department area by area and saw how the funding was working there. we did our homework. i'm glad we passed everything today. we had a great presentation on help me remember the name of th. a presentation but the name of the -- >> the equity initiative is a cross departmental initiative in the city to make sure all of our communities are being considered with all of the different deficient we're making as a department. so what i loved was that they now every initiative we undertake as a department there are questions that we have to ask and the questions are things like who does it serve? what are we not thinking about? making sure that the equity lens over lays everything so we don't have environmental justice program that is mostly thinking about environmental justice but that everything we do as a department ha

the committee requires u.s. financial institutions to hold excessive capital based on a look back, a look back approach to an organization's risks. previous earnings and other provisions that provide in indication of future risk. again, mr. speaker, this is about holding operational capital for past activities. this methodology employed by the international standard setters has forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve rather than putting that money to work in the real economy, in loans and investments for people to buy cars, to launch small business enterprises, maybe to make a down payment on that first home. again, mr. speaker, let me say it, so that all can hear. hundreds of billions of dollars is currently sitting in banks across the country, not being utilized, to fund the mortgage loans and car loans and other day-to-day financing that american families and individuals demand. on top of this is the increased cost of compliance that banks have had to shoulder under the dodd-frank

the committee requires u.s. institutions to hold excessive capital based on a look-back approach of an organization's risks, previous earnings, and other provisions that provide no indication of future risks. the methodology employed by this international body has forced our banks to hold hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve rather than putting the money to work in the form of loans and investments. that's money that could be used to fund mortgage loans, car loans, and other day to day financing for american consumers. i recognize the importance of our nation's financial institutions to hold capital in the event of a future crisis or distress. and h.r. 4296 maintains those apital requirements. it's important to have adequate capital to guard against loss. but there is a sweet spot that needs to be attained and regulators can do that, if you have proper regulation in place. what this bill does is amend the method by which the reserve capital is calculated by folks in be a organization's current business act

of the committee but senators who are not on this committee. it raises serious questions from the impacts on national security to the excess costs that this decision may likely impose on our federal government at a time when our budget deficit is going to exceed $1 trillion in just one year, the kind of money that we're talking about here is alarming. i hope that today's hearing can answer some of these questions and alleviate members' concerns, including my own. what is not in question today is the fact that the fbi needs a new headquarters. chairman's already said that. we agree. current facilities in dangerous disrepair which not only affects the day-to-day operations of the fbi but also has significant national security implications. one of the main motivations to consolidate the fbi into one location was to ensure that fbi headquarters maintains necessary security standards. there are also efficiencies to be gained by reducing departmental fragmentation. this new plan, however, appears to do just the pop sit. opposite. and instead of movin

>> well, it's a budget committee thing. the budget committee needs a point estimate. so we try to characterize uncertainty as best we can and that's hard to do. to be honest, so much uncertainty is unknown unknowns. can you walk us through the requirements that are either in stch out thstretch out how you have the baseline? >> there's quite a lot. for example, how we treat social security trust funds and et cetera. we're directed to assume that that pays out rather than the trust fund cuts off benefits, you know. when we forecast discretionary spending we aren't really forecasting it and we just put an inflation rate in and assume that. so most of those little rules are directed either through law or through the budget committee. >> that goes to mr. brad's comment about it's on us to actually deal with some of these. i just want to talk a little bit about something that i'm obsessed with and that's the pace of change in society and how that complicates a lot of policy making and not to speak of your role. i remember when secretary geithner used to come before the comm