mr. chairman, and sincerely with your leadership and mr. lujan that our subcommittee will seriously look at possibility. let's mandate this by the congress, because here's the problem that we have here. when -- congress ultimately does have the authority under the constitution to recognize the indian tribe simply by introducing a bill, but here's the problem, when the will is introduced to give recognition to a tribe, there's objection by some of our colleagues here that say, well, they have to go through the recognition process, a process that is done administratively, not by the will of the congress, but the way the bureaucrats have written these regulations for the past 34 years. so what do we do if the process is broken? it comes right back to the congress. what do we do from here? so i -- i -- it would be my humble recommendation, mr. chairman, that we need to put this in the form of a statute because here's the problem when you have a regulation that can be done by this administration. the next administration will change the regulatio

mr. chairman. i just want to first of all go back for one moment, and the document that you read from june 20th, 2012, the one that you and i just got from the deputy attorney general, i do believe that we need to study this and make sure that we understand exactly what the president is asserting here. but just want to quote from it. on the last page, page 4, it says the legal basis for the president's assertion of executive privilege is set forth in the enclosed letter to the president from the attorney general. in brief, the compelled production to congress of these internal executive branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the department's response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant damaging consequences. as i explained in our meeting yesterday, and this is still quoting from the letter, it would inhibit the candor of such executive branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the executive branch's

mr. chairman. a couple of things to begin with. number one, the attorney general or any other subject of the subpoena cannot demand to have an agreement in exchange for a legitimate request from the commity. so i think that many -- all of us probably agree with you on that. there were two different versions of what was discussed or how that meeting went, mr. cummings, has a different understanding of it than -- >> would the gentleman yield very quickly? >> i have today gotten the -- from the attorney general's office noted that all he's referring to is trying to have a good faith effort to resolve the subpoena and contempt issue only. i yield back. >> i would respect the chairman for standing up for committee prerogatives. second, i agree with the chairman that we do owe it to the terry family to get to the bottom of this, but the third point, this is the challenge that we always have in congress. everything that we do when it ends up on a partisan vote leaves the american public with the view that

mr. chairman, i want to second the remarks of our chairman. i think this is an amendment that while well intentioned in certain respects is not one that we can or should accept. mr. price: i know it's easy to target management and administrative costs. they sometimes lack concreteness, they lack a constituency. but as a matter of fact we depend on these management and administrative functions to run the department and at the end of the day cutting those functions will indeed affect frontline operations. we should make no mistake about that. in my opinion this bill already cuts administrative functions by imprudent amounts. it already slashes funding for offices at the departmental level, for example, by 21%. below the administration's request. so, while this amendment may be appealing to some, i believe it's unwise and i urge colleagues to oppose it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment -- i have an amendment, i guess. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. is the gentleman's amendment at the desk? mr. graves: it should be at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. graves of missouri. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to finalize, implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled professional unlawful waivers of inadmissibility for certain relatives published by the department of homeland security -- 2002. , 20 the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a member opposed, each for fiche minutes. mr. graves: under current law, certain spouses, children and parents of u.s. citizens who are in this country illegally are not eligible to apply for a green card without first leaving the unit

mr. chairman, i am with you on this. i will yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to make a point that a week before last in the house judiciary committee chairman issa, a representative gowdy and i were there. i asked the attorney general if he was willing to sit down, and he was so adamant that the senior level of department of justice people were not involved, i asked him, would you be willing to come sit with us, allow mr. gowdy and i to come sit with you and share this information and show us what you have and he said no. he said no. he said i am done doing this. i have given you every bit of information and i have no intention of further talking to you. sadly, that's in part why we're here today. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. who else seeks recognition, the gentleman from cleveland, ohio, kucinich is recognized. >> at the risk of stating the obvious, the assertion of executive privilege has taken this proceeding into a whole new realm, and while congress has the constitutional

mr. chairman. i am astounded that today we are sitting here weighing whether to hold the attorney general of the united states, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country in contempt of congress. the house of representatives has never in our long history held an attorney general in contempt, and i am horrified that we are going forward with this contempt charge that the president of the united states and the administration have invoked executive privilege for the documents sought by the chairman and the attorney general is being attacked for protecting documents that he is prohibited by law from producing, and i just speak strongly in opposition to this action and in opposition to this report. i would like to point out that our committee, the committee on oversight and government reform is supposed to root out problems and find ways to reform how government works. it shouldn't a political witch hunt against the attorney general of our country and our president in an election year, a

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think this latest discussion really goes to the essence of why we need to be able to have access to documents that tell us the full story. as a former member of the justice department, i'm actually not surprised that an acting head of atf would not have detailed knowledge about the substance of -- and the tactics of investigations all the way through. in fact, the chain of communication here is what's important. it is the evidence that's being obtained by the investigators on the ground, that then goes to the assistant united states attorneys that prepare the affidavits that then go directly to justice. that go to the oeo. they don't get rooted through the head of atf. they go directly to oto. the office that oversees the applications for the wire taps. and so, it -- but the point of it is, with the limited evidence that we have been able to get, some things have been made very, very clear. and it is that in september 2009, lanny brewer, who was in charge of the criminal di

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to thank the chairman, mr. hastings, the park subcommittee chairman, mr. bishop, and the staff of the natural resources committee for working with me to move my legislation, the san antonio missions national historical park boundary expansion act, through the committee and have it included as part of the bill before us. will the chairman enter into a brief colloquy with me? mr. hastings: yes. mr. canseco: is it the chairman's understanding that after adoption of the manager's amendment, the bill contains reforms that would only allow for lands to come into the park via donation or exchange and that these reforms apply only to the land coming into the park boundary as a result of the legislation before us? mr. hastings: the gentleman is correct with the adoption of the manager's amendment. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to rise in support of the underlying legislation which contains my legislation, the san antonio missions national historical park boundary expansion act, which i introduced with

chairman mcdonnell: mr. schreiber? >> my answer is still no, but if other task force members present compelling ropes, my vote is no right now. chairman mcdonnell: thank you so much. i am going to marry you off to someone before these are over. ms. mondejar. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: no, never? >> no to this proposal. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam, for clarification, the stoney ford for stony brook move for the 9-11 border would go into -- >> from nine -- >> from 11 to nine. >> right. >> and then bringing the tingley out of eight into 11. we need to see the population variance for those two moves. i am not interested in the st. luke's move. i don't know if that would get us close enough. >> what he identified in the rotation were three, relatively-speaking approximately 800 populations. that is the puzzle move. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. mrs. mondejar. -- m's melara. i am not interested in changing our decision we made last time, primarily we made it very deliberately. when the community comes tonig

mr. chairman. >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> the attorney general will be able to answer the question. >> he hasn't asked the question. >> i'm halfway through it if you quit interrupting. if in fact if the statute says they're responsible and if in fact they're not read -- >> regular order. >> -- how are the american people to understand -- >> regular order. >> -- who's responsible for what is contained in these -- >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> be, in fact -- because anyone of ordinary reading, including the atf director, former director, nelson, anyone reading these, according to him, would have to be sick to their stomach because they'd be immediately aware -- >> do you have a question, mr. chairman? >> so who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> all right. you really conflated a bunch of things. the responsibility -- >> you delivered so little -- >> regular order, now, mr. chairman, will he be allowed to answer the question now. >> the attorney general will be allowed to a

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the nuclear regulatory commission, the n.r.c., has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the yucca nuclear waste repository as called for in the nuclear waste policy act, but it refuses to do so. the n.r.c. claims it has the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this congress if the agency is not given enough money to quote-unquote finish the job. under our constitution agencies are funded year to year. they are seldom if ever given enough money in one year to do what the law expects them to do, especially for long-term projects. in 1998 when the yuck awe proceedings happened, they gave them enough money to do it in one year. we didn't give them enough money to carry out the three-year licensing. the n.r.c. didn't stop because it didn't have enough money to finish the job. in fact, n.r.c. only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based upon the administration's policy decision that the site is no longer workable.

mr. chairman and, mr. speaker, is we need to make sure we move forward as this bill will do to make sure -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: to make sure we are fulfilling our commitment to the american people to do everything we can to make sure that they will live in prosperity and freedom and hope for a better life for their children. this has always been tied to the utilization of the natural resources and this bill will ensure that our people will ben frit from those gifts that god -- benefits from those gifts that god gave us underneath our land. the chair: the gentleman from illinois continue to reserve? mr. rush: yes. the chair: i yield to another freshman, mr. gosar from arizona -- mr. gardner: i yield to another freshman, mr. gosar from arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: over 13 million americans are still without work. our constituents are counting us -- on us to take action. the republican-led house has been leading the way with so

mr. chairman. >> the gentleman of utah is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i rise an opposition. i have the greatest respect for the gentleman of vermont. i know he stands on principle and he's passionate about this country and wants truth and justice in all ways. i have the greatest respect for him, but i do stand in opposition to this amendment. this has been going on for a long time, and i would also site the actual contempt items. we looked at the subpoena that was issued back in october. i would point to item number e one. i would also point to items number 2, number 4 and number 5, it was not just limited to just fast and furious, it says all communication relating to operation fast and furious, this is under point number one, the jacob chambers case or any organized crime, drug enforcement task force, firearms, trafficking case based in phoenix, arizona, to or from the following individuals. on number 2, it says the latter part of it says, referring to or relating to operation fast and furious or any other firearms trafficking case. point

mr. chairman, fhang you, mr. chairman, for that question. obviously the loss at jpmorgan chase was a big loss and one thatnkhang you, mr. chairman, for that question. obviously the loss at jpmorgan chase was a big loss and one thatang you, mr. chairman, for that question. obviously the loss at jpmorgan chase was a big loss and one thatng you, mr. chairman, for that question. broader financial system. what's clear is that the lessons that we all learned from what happened at jpmorgan chase will serve as important lessons, insights into the range of dodd-frank implementation work to come, whether the volcker rule or questions about risk management or enhanced prudential standards or for that matter capital. and i think this incident underscores the need for us to pay attention to examples like this in order to learn those lessons, both with respect to dodd-frank implementation and as i suggested earlier the broader efforts of supervision that are ongoing. >> secretary wolin, are regulators better coordinated and prepared after wall street refo

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i do have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bishop of utah. after the dollar amount insert reduce by $3 million. after the dollar amount insert increase by $624,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and will be charged for destructing of furniture property. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. the border patrol does a great job when they are allowed to do a great job. unfortunately, there are certain areas of access into this country who are illegal, an area of choice especially of the drug cartels and drug traffickers and there are is a relation between areas of access and federal property which has been designated as endangered species habitat. last year's figures i have, over half of the illegal entries went through one sector in arizona, a portion of th

mr. chairman. mr. curry, i want to ask you about jpmorgan losing $2 billion and possibly more since the occ is a primary regulator of jp more dwan jpmorgan and the oc can c has a well-deserved represe reputation for being cozy with the banks that it regulates. and i know you just got in the new position, so you have an opportunity here to decide what the occ does in the future. and i find it interesting, you know, what i don't want to see is a repeat of 2008. i know that, you know, a free market is essential to our very economic vitality, but there is a difference of a free market and a free for all market. and in 2008, what we obviously came to the conclusion of is the consequences of a free for all market where the decisions of large financial institutions became the collective risk of an entire country even though they were in part of making those investment and other decisions and then all of us had to pay. and so, you know, i wish we had insisted on capitalization then, and i wish we had insisted

mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote on that. the chair: the gentleman from new york has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 24, be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move the committee now do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. shock, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it doesn't seem like the news is getting much better. i want to get a little parochial. you said we need to act soon. i'm just curious what the younger generations of americans have in store for themselves if we don't act soon? >> i would say two-part answer. the mathematical part of the answer is a net income loss. there's a table in the trustees report that says if you just held all current participants in the system harmless, then people coming into the system would lose a net of about 4% of their taxable wage income to social security. that's after they receive all benefits. now those income losses would be higher, but lower on one side. so generations would lose money through the program. so that's the mathematical answer. getting back to the questions that were asked earlier, i think they would also face the risk that we might not be able to generate the political will to keep the program operating on a self-financing basi

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member braley and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased to be here today to discuss the department of veterans affairs efforts and implementation of executive order 13677 entitled principles of excellence for institutional education service veterans, service members and family members which is designed to strengthen oversight and enforcement accountability within educational programs. the va supports the executive order, which directs va and other federal agencies to develop and implement these principles of excellence to ensure service members, veterans, spouses, and other family members using military and veterans education benefits have comprehensive educational and financial aid information so they can make informed choices in selecting educational programs which will best meet their educational and readjustment needs. further, the executive order will put in place enhanced oversight and enforcement mechanisms to ensure beneficiaries are protected

mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. dougherty? >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the new policies and procedures the labor department is planning for its press lockups. my name is rob dougherty, i'm general manager in the united states for reuters which is the news division of thomson reuters. reuters is the largest international news agency in the world. we have more than 2,900 full-time journalists in 2300 bureaus around the world reporting in 20 languages. globally our addians includes more than 1,700 text, media and 600 tv clients over 35 million visitors to reuters websites each month, and more than 400,000 financial professionals subscribe to thompson reuters desktop products. on april 10th, the labor department notified our washington bureau chiefs and other news organizations about major changes they planned for the operation of lockups then covered the changes in detail so i won't repeat those. needily to say, we were taken aback by the change. dramat

mr. chairman. mr. alvarez, if we'll look at derivative trading and we're going to prioritize the risk that these major firms face, would that particular activity be in the middle or at the top? is that a scary, risky thing or kind of not very risky? what priority should we be looking at when we consider derivative trades? >> i'm not sure what priority congress wants to -- >> i'm saying you. you're in charge. we simply oversee. you are in charge of risk. that's what you say. >> i think from our perspective we're taking two high priority approaches. we think it's important for firms to have good risk management -- >> my question is not that. my question is derivative trading itself, is it high risk? >> it can be. >> so it can be high risk item. that's all i'm trying to establish. >> mr. pierce, allow the witness to answer the question. you are stepping on his answer. >> i have five minutes and if he's going to skew off to the side -- >> he's trying to answer your question. >> my question isn't what they'

mr. chairman. >> mr. curry, i want to ask you about jp morgan losing $2 billion or more and being too cozy with the banks it regulates. i know you just got to your new position here. you have an opportunity to decide what the occ does in the future i find it interesting. i don't want to see a repeat of 2008. i know that a free market is essential to our very economic vitality. in 2008 we obviously came to the conclusion of a consequences of a free for all market, where the decisions of large financial institutions became the collective risk of an entire country, even though they were in part of making those investments and other decisions. and then all of us had to pay. and so, you know, i wish we had insisted on capitalization then, had insisted on a whole host of things that had avoided 2008. i'm never forget that meeting with chairman bernanke and secretary paulson where they described largely a series of financial institutions on the verge of collapse and suggested that if they collapsed they would cr

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think it is most unfortunate that the deliberations of this committee have reached such a partisan and rancorous level. i've always been told that where there is righteousness in the heart that there is beauty in the character. i've also been led to believe that the constitution requires the executive branch and congress to accommodate the interest of the other to avoid unnecessary conflicts and the framework of the constitutional democracy, and i quote, and that the conflict arose between the coordinate branches and spiritity of dynamic compromise would promote resolution of the dispute in a manner most likely to result in efficient and effective functioning of our governmental system. attorney general william french smith who served under president reagan observed, and i quote, the accommodation required is not simply an exchange of con session or a test of political strength. it is an obligation of each branch to make principled effort to acknowledge and, if possible, to

mr. chairman. mr. powell, you and all of the other panelists have pointed out the way the competitive environment and technology has changed and is continuing to change. you recommended re-examining a lot of the rules, the regulatory rules, program access, content carriage obligations as well as must-carry transmission consent and non-duplication rights. so some would say that weakening -- if we were to weaken any of those rules it would give cable an unfair competitive advantage. given the wide choices that are available today, how would you respond to that? >> it is a great question. i think the way i would characterize it is i don't think the cable industry's position is we're just looking for wild abandoned deregulation. i think we're looking for a more rationalized regulatory model that more properly reflects the reality of the market. we think a lot of the rules that we're currently living under if you accept the way they're premised would fall under a standard by today's measurements. now, imper

mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. mcinernie. we'll get back to that question before we leave. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. holdren, thank you for joining us today. in your testimony you mentioned a few new projects such as the website about manufacturing data bases, and the robotics initiative. would you please discuss how these and other initiatives create jobs locally, and how they advance our leadership in the world with regard to innovation? >> all of the initiatives that we've been pursuing in this domain, advanced manufacturing, robotics, nano technology, and others, are aimed, as i mentioned before, at accelerating the transfer of fundamental advances and discovery in science and engineering into commercial processes, products, services, and therefore, into economic growth and jobs. and the fact that all of these initiatives are constructed around partnerships, with the private sector working together with the public sector and the academic sector, is in fact leading to success in accelerating the transfer of these ini

mr. chairman. thank you, mr. crane. thank you to all of the panelists. >> mr. crane, were you taken out of context in other quotes, like i've never seen anything i've had to do anything that was less than these projects? was that in context or out of context? >> that's in context. i believe in the context of -- >> do you intend to do as much of this business as you can get your hands on? >> yes. keep in mind, mr. chairman, we are working to build a nuclear power plant. i would say building in the california desert is about the least risky project you can do in the power industry. >> okay. >> so no, that was not taken out of context. >> i just wanted to be clear, which was in context and which was out of. mr. rakowich, to your knowledge, before you got any -- before you got the loan guarantee, conditional or final, did the d.o.e. share any internal documents with you on your company or representatives of your company? >> i'm not sure i follow. what types of documents would you be referring to? >> any documents. i put up the one e-mail where you guys got to edit

mr. chairman, i would beg to allow. >> the lady is out of order. >> excuse me, mr. chairman, i would beg to allow the attorney general to be able to finish his answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i thank you the chairman. >> and the attorney general will have more time to do that if we don't have interruptions. >> and i would like my time reclaimed that was taken by the young lady. >> mr. chairman, i suggest we take back the time mr. lundgren used, the two minutes over his time that he used and -- >> you want to give me an additional two minutes, i'm fine with it. >> no, i'll give you the 45 seconds i yielded back. but we're going to apply a rule on one side of this aisle -- >> let's get back -- >> and apply -- >> let's get back to order. the gentleman from california as the time and the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> isn't it true, mr. rag you have not produced a log of records withheld even though our attorneys have asked for it? >> i'm not sure about it. >> okay. i'm sure you didn't. so let's move

mr. chairman. >> mr. mancini, let me ask you this. if the gentleman just for one second -- if the 1705 program had not been in place, would goldman have, goldman sachs, would you have funded, would you have put capital at risk in the cogentrix, in the project? >> if the 1705 program had not been available -- >> just be clear, you're a wholly-owned subsidiary of goldman sachs. if this, i mean, i know it's hypothetical. but if that money wasn't there, would this have been a worthy project? would goldman say, you know what? we believe in this, we're going to put up the cash? would you guys have done it? >> just remember, mr. chairman, our first stop was to no less than ten commercial banks to see if we could get the funding, including goldman sachs, from a debt perspective -- >> so the answer is, no? >> beg your pardon? >> so the answer is no? you wouldn't have done it? >> we wouldn't have done the project. the cost of capital would have been too expensive. >> okay. so i think that sort of proves our point. it's okay to put the taxpayer

mr. chairman. thank you, general. mr. holder, on april 27, 2011, members of this committee as you to give us information surrounding a decision by justice to forgo prosecution of the unindicted co-conspirators in the whole land foundation case. this is the largest terrorist finance case of course in u.s. history. you refused to comply with his request and you have still not produced, or are you still not prosecuted this despite there being what many consider to be a mountain of evidence against these jihadists groups to at least one of which now says it is working inside the agency to help advise on the purge of counterterrorism training micheel. we are told that this none of evidence which outlines the jihadists network within the united states amounts to 80 bankers boxes, full of documents. this evidence was turned over to the cord, and much of it was giving to the jihadists defense lawyers. members of this committee and other committees would like to review this evidence. what it has to be on a classified basis or not.

mr. chairman, and senator lugar, it is a please your to be here today. mr. chairman, we need to thank tom for this cop opportunity as well. is that right. on be hafhalf of 0 the companied the millions of men and women who work in the natural oil and gas industry, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on the treaty. we agree with secretary of state hillary clinton and former secretary of state conoleeza rice. that joining the law of the sea convention is truly in the best interest of the united states. today the u.s. relies on oil and natural gas for over 60% of all of the energy that we consume. recent projections of our own department of energy in the obama administration shows that 60% of the energy we consume will continue to be oil and natural gas. other projections show the demand for world global energy will increase by over 50% in the next 20 to 30 years enjergy is very serious issue particularly to our global economy. the company spent years looking for and producing natural gas from around the world. from 2008 to 2011, the industry spent over $700

mr. chairman, i yield back. thanks. >> senator jo hans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dimon, let me just say thank you for being here today. i have listened to the various questions about the trade and i think to summarize everything, you have acknowledged definitely was a dumb move. the loss is unfortunate. you have apologized for that. you have kind of walked us all through that. so what i want to do is ask you about some things maybe at a 25,000-foot level. how many regulators do you have on site in your organization from some federal entity? >> i believe there are hundreds. >> hundreds? >> and it's across multiple regulators. >> right. when something like this pops up, are the channels clear anymore as to how you deal with and who is regulating what and who you need to be paying attention to? how do you deal with that? >> you know, we're always going to treat the regulators the way they deserve to be treated. we have to deal with it. we have people who were sirened specifically to deal with regulators. the occ, the fed, we deal with all of them. on this particular

mr. chairman, thank you very much. and to the members who are present and to the ranking member, and the full committee chairperson of the full committee. mr. pistol, good morning. i thank the chairman for this opportunity, and i welcome administrator pistol and acknowledge that this month marks your two-year anniversary at tsa. might i also congratulate you on a great event you recently had with your family and wish them well. i thank you for your leadership, and i look forward to continuing to work with you. and i also, mr. chairman, would like to thank you for holding what i hope will be an informative hearing. let me acknowledge, as we all do in this business, that i have before the judiciary committee the attorney general. and so i will be looking to be in this hearing for as long as i can, and if mr. pistol would accept the fact that i may be not in two places at once, but have to be in two places for the responsibilities that i have. but it is important for us to recognize the leadership of mr. pistol and identif

mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and thanks for the hearing. i do hope we're successful in having a markup on the menendez-boxer bill and hopefully it will happen soon. i know that in any big piece of legislation, 2,400 pages, there's going to be some good attributes. i know from my perspective as we get further and further in the rearview mirror, it's more and more evident to me that in many ways dodd-frank was a political response to a instead of real reform in many ways, and i do hope when this season is over and everybody talking about it being the best thing since sliced bread, will move on to exploring real reforms down the road. mr. tarullo, i do thank you for talking about capital. i think that's our best buffer against financial institutions having trouble, and i think that has been a contribution, and mr. gruenberg, i appreciate you coming in and talking today about orderly liquidation. i do think, mr. chairman, i don't know how many people have gone through th

mr. chairman. >> mr. gur lack is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hak bart, i'm just going to raise a quick question with you and rather than you reply now, maybe you might want to get back to me later because it deals with the march report, and not the june report. but i did want to raise this issue with you with the hope that you can provide us with your insight and thoughts on it. i have a constituent who got three days of home health care services and ultimately the agency billed for that service for a total of $1,500. ended up getting reimbursed for $3,000 even though it was only billed at $1,500 because of episode of care regulations. >> uh-huh. >> as they are currently written. so we wrote to cms about this issue and got a response back from lawrence wilson, director of the policy group, who says basically that in med-pac's march report shows to free standing home health agencies in 2010 were an average 19.4% higher than the provider's cost. a huge amount of reimbursement of the cost. the estimate of margins for home health agencies in 2012 i

mr. chairman. thank you, chairman aderholt, for yielding the time. mr. chairman, this is the 10th anniversary bill for this subcommittee. we began work in 2003, and the first three speakers that are on the platform today are the three chairmen of that subcommittee in its 10 years of history. i have the honor of being the first chairman and then was followed by david price as chairman and now robert aderholt. so we have, if there is any accumulated wisdom, we possess a portion of it. so we want to thank chairman aderholt and ranking member price for their hard work on this subcommittee. this is truly a bipartisan, nonpartisan subcommittee because the nation's security cannot bow to any partisan spirits. but i think after these 10 years we can all agree that the country is indeed safer than it was then. we've thwarted the -- the country's thwarted several attempts at terrorist attacks in our skies. we eliminated the world's most heinous terrorist, osama bin laden, and more recently the number two al q

mr. chairman. mr. dimon -- over here. >> let me explain to the witness because a little unusual procedure. the republican side elected to go in order and not to come back up to the top to allow all of the members to ask questions and democratic members are starting over. >> with modifications for people who are here or not here. >> that's fine. thank you. miss waters -- miss biggert for five minutes. >> thank you. what went wrong with j.p. morgan's value at risk model which was used to estimate losses that occur on a particular trade or in a portfolio? the press has reported that j.p. morgan changed its model which allowed its london traders to take on more risk and then j.p. morgan changed its model again and then to top it off this change occurred in january which seemed to be material in nature, but was not included in its value at risk model. the sec has said that when a public company changes its model those changes must be disclosed. why exactly was the risk model changed? >> we have a hundred mo

mr. chairman. although members of congress from both parties have supported 1705 loan guarantees for projects in their districts, it now appears that some of my friends in the majority have had a change of heart. in a report published in march, the majority argued that d.o.e., quote, amassed an excessively risky loan portfolio, unquote. there are experts who do disagree with the majority's assessment. recognizing the inherent risk in emerging green technology loans, congress authorized to set aside $2.47 billion for potential losses in the d.o.e. 1705 loan guarantee program. according to several analysts, even after accounting for the collapse of solyndra and beacon power, the actual default rate on the d.o.e. loan guarantee program ended up being a fraction of what the government actually budgeted for the losses. bloomberg government also came to a different conclusion than the majority. bloomberg's recent report beyond solyndra and analysis of d.o.e.'s loan guarantee program concludesed that the

mr. chairman and mr. bernanke. thank you very much for being with us. i'm going to try to be as brief as i can. i think i have three questions which i would appreciate your answering. number one, first one deals with conflicts of interest at the fed. as you know, jamie diamond is the ceo and chairman of jpmorgan chase, which is the largest financial institution in this country. during the fed bailout, if you like, $116 trillion in low-interest loans over a period of time were given out to every financial institution in this country. jpmorgan chase received over $300 billion of those loans. the american people, i believe, perceive a conflict of interest when you have, among others, the head of the largest financial institution in america sitting on the new york fed wihich is presumably supposed to be regulating the fed, regulating these financial institutions. many people, me, myself, see this as a situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse and that we need real reform in fed to make sure that it's representing the middle class, small business of t

mr. chairman. and i try to pick up a little bit where mr. turner left off, and that is, besides for pre-check, which has expedited significantly for people who have signed up and people who travel all the time. but what should we expect or look for for the regular traveler who is not signed up? and i thought that shoes on would be something that would have been achieved by now. what can we look for in the near future for the general traveling public to help them through the process? >> thank you, congressman. we are working both internally andreceived some propos proposals, how do we expand that known population, using commonly available data, that, again, if people are willing to share that, how can a private company take that data, assimilate, assess it, based on our criteria of risk and provide that information to us, outside the elite frequent flyers or global entry program. i had a meeting on that yesterday. i think there's very good opportunities. it's not an overnight fix, but i think it will give us an opportunity to greatly expand t

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator carper. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to welcome our witnesses today. it's very nice to see you, dr. haskins. when i was privileged to be governor of delaware and involved in the national governors association, this issue, he was one of the top advisors for us in the house and frankly as governors as well. i appreciate very much the great work that you've done, continue to do. i welcome our other two witnesses as well. i still have the chance to go into schools all over my state, i'm sure my colleagues visit schools throughout their states. i like to do assemblies in high schools and sometimes when i do, in middle schools as well, and i'll mention this to them, that if a young woman age 16 becomes pregnant, drops out of school, does not marry the father of her child, there's an 80% likelihood that they will live in poverty. if that same 16-year-old girl does not become pregnant, graduates high school, waits until at least 20 to have a child and ends up marrying the father of her child, there's an 8% likelihood they

mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. honda: i am pleased we are considering the fiscal year 2013 legislative branch appropriations bill. chairman crenshaw has been collegial in the development of this bill and i appreciate his willingness to accept our input throughout the process. but chairman's mark before us funds the legislative branch at $3.3 billion, a cut of 1%, from fiscal year 2012. and this does not include senate items. even with a lower allocation, chairman crenshaw was able to level fund and even increase several areas important to the operation of the legislative branch. the house overall is held flat at $1.225 billion. the capitol police will receive $360 million, a nearly 6% increase. the congressional budget office is funded at $44.3 million, $493,000 above the fiscal year 2012 level. and the governm

mr. chairman. you know, i listen to this and i paraphrase shakespeare, a hedge or not a hedge, that's the real question. and it seems to me that you call these trades that lost anywhere between $2 billion and $4 billion economic hedges, a tempest in a teapot which i now understand you regret, and went on to say that it morphed but really, a hedge as i understand it doesn't create a loss without a corresponding gain. that's why you're hedging. and what seems to me that happened here is that you were pursuing a synthetic loan portfolio of selling cdss which in essence was a toxic instrument that caused a big part of our challenges of 2008, the crisis of 2008, and so really, you know, when you reduce a hedge or hedge a hedge, isn't that really gambling? >> i don't believe so, no. >> so this transaction that you said morphed, what did it morph into? russian roulette? >> into something i just can't justify that was too risky for our company. >> that is the real concern here. too risky for your company,

mr. chairman. >> cementer klobuchar? >> thank you mr. chairman for being here. i continue to work with a bipartisan group of senators something like 45 of us democrats, republicans trying to come up with a comprehensive solution. we have made some headway and it would be a mix of spending cuts and revenue to get us to that 4 trillion figure in ten years of debt reduction. you've made it clear that you believe we need to do something significant to address these fiscal challenges. i do think a balanced approach would be about the best way to do it with a mix of the spending cuts in the revenue. >> first of all, i congratulate you on these efforts. i'm glad to see people are working hard on this. it's really not my place to edify s. con. res. 70 on the particular mix of spending tax exchanges, so i hope he will understand that. but i'm glad to see that there is a bipartisan effort involved in trying to address this problem. >> the last time we talked talked at this hearing about how if we fail to act again and went to the brink as has happened last summer with a d

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sarbanes: i rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman on the subcommittee of transportation, h.u.d., and related agencies, mr. latham and mr. wolf, on the i dryer alcohol detection system for safety. i yield to the gentleman. mr. latham: i would be glad to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf. mr. sarbanes: i thank the chairman. as the gentlemen are aware the national highway transportation safety administration, nhtsa, has been working on a public -private research program known as the driver alcohol detection system for safety, or dads, that would develop a path of technology to detect if a driver's blood alcohol content is above the legal limit. i would urge the chairman to consider funding for the dads program as this bill moves forward and i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman from maryland and rise to support his initiative. mr. chairman, too many times a

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general, december 14th, 2010, brian terry was gunned down and we began knowing more about fast and furious shortly thereafter. but you've said people representing you have said repeatedly you didn't know about it before then. i've sent you a number of letters. senator grassley sent you a number of letters. you mentioned in your opening statement the speaker's letter. speaker did not limit the scope of the subpoenas you're under an obligation to respond to. he simply asked you for response to two key areas. he did not revoke any subpoenas. however, you implied that we were working together when, in fact, since may 18th nothing, nothing has come from your department. not one shred of paper. i want to ask you first of all today have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have responded to the subpoenas. >> no, mr. attorney general, you're not a good witness. a good witness answers the question asked. s

mr. chairman. a lot has changed in the video marketplace over the last 20 years. content, distribution and consumers' preferences have all evolved. we are a society that wants what we want, when we want it, wherever we want it, and because of this, communications sector has spent billions over the last two decades in order to meet that consumer appetite. as we engage in discussions about the current state of video marketplace, and get bogged down in the details of disputes and issues, it is important that we always keep one thing in mind. the consumer is and will always remain the most important component of the discussion. it's appropriate to ask questions about whether the regulations of decades past are, in fact, still appropriate today. do they inhibit competition or spur it. do they create regulatory parity or uneven playing fields. most importantly, do we still work to the betterment of the consumer. or are consumers now caught in the middle. consumers need to benefit from the great expansion

mr. chairman. it is -- i just want to first of all go back for one moment and the document that you read from, june 20, 2012, the one you and i just got from the deputy attorney general, when he was talking about executive privilege, and i do believe we need to study this and make sure that we understand exactly what the president is asserting here. but just want to quote from it. on page -- the last page, page 4. it says the legal basis for the president's assertion of executive privilege is set forth. the enclosed letter. in brief the compelled production to congress of these internal executive branch documents generated in the course of the deliberate are a tif process concerning the department's response to congressional oversight would have significant damaging consequences. as i explained at our meeting yesterday -- and this is still quoting from the letter -- it would inhibit the cannedor of such executive branch great lakeses in the future and would impair the executive branch's ability to