release spectacular. so the signal is given. everything is in place and off they go. midday at westminster and the imperial state crown is being returned to buckingham palace and there is the tower of london. a real sense of what would have happened as well in past centuries. crown being taken through the streets of london as a symbol of the sovereign's authority very much on display.

so now the business is all about responding to the speech. we had a little response in the studio so i will ask my guests to be patient for a minute because we want -- to go straight to norman spencer inside parliament. >> you all know this is inevitably on the impact of the measures contained in the queen's speech verge with a different in different parts of the u.k.? we are involved with different assemblies and parliament. to consider what the impact might be outside westminster i am joined by nigel pots and a guest robertson. anything in the queen's speech that will be particularly welcome the or not welcomed? >> there are some interesting measures in terms of splitting the retail and the investment side of the regulation issues but by and large this is made of a number of individual light of

this. disappointing thing for families and hard-working people not in terms of reducing the heavy cost of fuel and diesel but the real crisis in terms of energy cost, cost of living. these are the issues that really affect people and there was little in the queen's speech that will impact on those issues for hard-working families and individualss and businesses. really crushed by the lack of kraft and that is what we're looking for the next term of parliament. >> the view from wales? >> a very important issue that whales is on its last flag unless something is done. it needs profitable investment. and provided it does have the billions necessary. i am worried about the effect on something like that. i am assisted by the idea that we argued over many years now,

into old age pension which we think is at the right level should be quite reasonable and helpful. >> comparatively light speech in terms of measures. >> most people in southern wales or northern ireland or england will be struck at a time we learned double dip recession there wasn't much in the queen anne's speech that can give confidence that things will improve. the government working hard to persuade the tory government that they should bring forward shovel ready projects to secure jobs investment and stimulus to the economy. other elements of the queen's speech not much detail on the energy bill. that will be important for obvious reasons in all our nations and in england too. we should not lose sight of the fact aplenty goes on in parliament, we should be very concerned an area of growing concern in scotland with the government has planned for the regiment and we will see

historic names amalgamated and disbanded at a time the armed forces in scotland on the smallest in living memory. for all these reasons a disappointing speech. it is a missed opportunity and people in scotland and wales and northern ireland and england will be asking what on earth this will do to help us get out of the double-dip recession and the answer is precious little. >> thanks so much. some degree of consensus. actually this is a relatively thin speech. i counted 16 bills in total. you go back to the blair years and some of the queen's speeches contains more than 40 different bills. >> we may have time to go back in a few minutes. just some thoughts on what is in and what is out. >> 44 bills in 2005 queen's beach, 35 in 1991.

the same as the end of the brown era. not that many. people focus on the things that were not there. at the end of the speech she talked-about international aid. in part to reassure the charity who are upset there is not legislation to ensure the target of gdp is matt. we discussed before there is no bill on social care in large part because every government looked at this and terrified of the cost and tell people what they're entitled to. you remind them what they're not entitled to. they don't fancy doing that because it upsets people and it is striking. the minister said it wasn't important but there's no high-speed tube and that gives another year for opponents to think we will get to the prime minister to persuade him to put it off for another year and another year until it goes away again and finally i thought striking legal we all predicted the first line was our first priority should be the government should restore

economic stability. desire of the government to save these bills may not essentially all of them or most of them be about economics but that is the main purpose. >> i will pick up again, basically the rail is letting down those who think it is a good thing. >> what seems like an interesting story to get in a way of the actual fact. the facts are -- >> it has not happened. a chance of making sure it never happens. >> we need to present a parliament debate. it is the first major national line sins 1899. the next year will be spent preparing that, doing the work to make sure we know what the environmental impact will be in great detail. actually, talking about shovel ready project i don't need a bill in the -- both signed off

on suggestions and don't need a bill to have unprecedented levels of investment, eighteen billion pounds in our railway. there are actually a lot of people -- messages in the queen's speech but when we are tackling the the public finances or rebuilding the economy we are investing in infrastructure. >> back to you in a second. i will join norman again. >> probably poured over in those detail the proposal to reform the house of lords. seems to be ambiguous about how much detail and actual commitment there is in that proposal. let us consider that. there is a suspicion that lack of detail and lack of a deadline means the house of lords is destined for the long haul. >> that was inevitable.

there was a huge rebellion in the house of commons. they realized this bill being proposed would have a devastating impact and create a competitive chamber and the fact that the speech did not say we have a related house of lords or introduce the bill the joint committee considered is difficult to understand about reforming the composition and suggest the government may go for something that is a little less to more about reform which sailed through the house of commons or the house of lords. >> very important to the liberal democrats. are you feeling a little uneasy? >> you have to compare what was said in the queen's speech with what was given before. the government made it clear this is one of the key proposals and you have something small. governments look very silly if it told us we are about to get

the roar of the lion and produce the squeak of a motor. the reality is that is a battle going on within the government. between those who think about it is not outrageous to introduce the revolutionary democracy in the house of lords. 71 -- the vast majority. there are seven who include bahrain, yemen, we are in that company. and an element of democracy. that is what the government will bring forward. >> the top priority for the electorate is the economy. they do not want to see them move down in the house of lords.

>> conservatives brought forward the idea of mayors and roundly rejected but the reformation renewal of democracy is so important and why did they do that but the bottom line is we are now facing two and one depends on the other. and economic crisis and democratic crisis and you look at europe you see clearly one of the problems is governments don't have democratic support of their people for decisions that are necessary. >> the last word? >> a statement about democracy would be more credible if he and a party leader were not against giving people a referendum on reform of the house of lords. the coalition has been against it and that is the point about other parliaments. the issue here is if you have an elected house of lords it will take power away -- >> we will have to stop it here.

that is a lot still to go. the house of lords. >> vigorous nodding with tim farron. getting into his stride. there's a big constituency who just say whatever the merits of the argument, nothing wrong with having democracy. it is about priorities. is that really the priority? >> the priority -- getting the economy back on track. concerned about experts. boards reform has been on the background for years and the queen's great-grandfather, they started this process 100 or so years ago ended is not revolutionary. that we should have a democratized house of lords and will not take up parliamentary time. kind of a frustrated electorate. >> in our manifesto we said we

were 100% elected house of lords. and referendum on it and the referendum on reformer for voting this is demand -- and the local election, what they brought up was the impact on their living standards, high levels of unemployment and increased taxation on pension. though the things people care about and at the center. >> despite all the talk this won't be taking up parliamentary time. people shouldn't expect to see this of the book any time soon. >> i am sure there will be a lot of political discussion by people like me talking around the issues but you are right. the reality of what we will spend our time debating will be around things that matter in the real world cost-of-living and sorting out public finances, creation and getting the economy

back on track. that is, but our priority. at some point you have to look at how to make sure the house of lords, the twenty-first century struggling on the nineteenth. >> you say other priorities and youth unemployment were at the heart of this. >> listen to the wording her majesty -- the bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the law. my government will do this and it will bring forward. you could reform -- david steel talked about doing it and retiring lots of them and stopping people with criminal records and so on. this battle will happen and it -- the government is chosen to introduce a bill. >> we followed the debate as it happens but thank you all and thanks to our guests. thanks for watching.

the debate continues. from all the bbc team here, goodbye. ♪ ♪ >> this morning economists and new york times columnist paul krugman will be on washington journal to talk about his new book end this depression now. he argues for more economic stimulus. watch and call in with your comments at 8:30 eastern time. >> saturday's this month c-span

radio is airing more of the nixon tapes from the collection of secretly recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern here conversations with deputy national security adviser alexander haig. >> very significant new york times exposed -- expos d. a. of the most highly document -- i didn't read the story but that was leaked out of the pentagon. >> it will study was done for mcnamara and carried on after mcnamara by clifford and the peaceniks over there. this is a devastating security breach. >> listen at 90.1 fm on pacs than chattel 119 and c-spanradio.org. >> you are watching c-span2 with

politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknights watch key public policy events endeavour weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. past programs and get schedule on our web site and join in and social media sites. >> bills to reform the federal reserve by congressman ron paul that would do away with the federal reserve system entirely. he chairs the house financial services subcommittee hearing. this is just over an hour. >> this hearing will come to order. all members opening statements will be made part of the record.

chair notes some members may have additional questions for these two panels which they may wish to submit in writing. without objection the hearing record will remain open 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and place their responses and the record. i also ask unanimous consent that those non subcommittee members who are present be recognized if they wish to give opening statements or ask questions. i now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. first i want to thank our two colleagues for being here today and they will be recognized shortly. as many members know, the subject of the federal reserve and monetary policy is something i have been interested in for a long time believing it has a great deal of significance with regards to a healthy economy. today we will be discussing

various proposals to address the subject of shortcomings of the monetary system and i think what has happened in the last five years has been recognized by many that monetary policy and the federal reserve has a lot to do with the creation of some of our problems and shortcomings when a comes to solving these problems. the federal reserve has been around almost 100 years. and it has gone generally under the radar. not too many people -- it was always said that it should not be interfered with by the executive branch or the legislative branch but lately there has been more concern. with the help of congressman frank b. were able to get some transparency and was obviously

quite helpful in moving that along. from my viewpoint we have more to do on that but it is very clear whether we decide exactly what constitutional money and how it comes about i don't think many people reject the idea congress has responsibility of oversight and the crisis that came about the last five years of legal it changed dramatically. we had strong support for auditing the fed and more regulations because of the lawsuits. the way i see monetary policy is most people realize how big the economy is and supply and demand of all products and goods and services and labor but generally they don't talk a lot

about the other half of the equations sins that the monetary issue. one half of all transactions, to duck the issue and pretend it is not important has been a mistake. i personally believe that over these many decades the federal reserve has gotten a free pass because if you have good times and stimulate the economy and have easy credit and since something had to be done congress would generally act and the reserve would act and gets credit for getting us out of the slump. i think that has changed in the last five years because of the seriousness of the crisis, how applicable in is and how one of the consequences has been this

excess of debt and the bailing out that occurred. what the congress did on the bailout that was significant but minor compared to how much the federal reserve was able to do and for this reason so many people want to know what is going on. not only do we want to know about policy and a lot will be discussed about particular policies and how to guide that policy, but one thing we should not forget about is the nature of money. continuing to describe how we manage a monetary system it seems to be most difficult in my view that you have to be able to define money and the dollar which has not been done for a long, long time. we use the federal reserve note as the unit of account but there is no legal definition of a federal reserve note and that is a pledge to pay something.

they notes being something precise and then you have to have management and it doesn't work well, than you think we need more regulations and everything will work out smoothly. i have a lot of reservations about that because we have a lot of inflation and a lot of instability in prices and even when reports come out that the crisis are rather stable they ignore the fact the cost of living for many is going up significantly. the price of energy goes up and medical care goes up and education goes up. even when the cbi and the pp i might not be revealing what is happening there is a lot of destruction of the value of money and for this reason we have been in a decade or so where the real wages have not been able to keep up which is really the bottom line. the unemployment factor and

keeping up with the cost of living and keeping up with real wages so i am very pleased to have various members today as well as on the second panel to discuss what i consider a very important issue. now i would like to yield to mr. clayi. >> thank you for holding this hearing and improving the federal reserve system and examining today six pieces of legislation to reform the federal reserve system. one piece to abolish the federal reserve sponsored by our chairman and another one sponsored by mr. kucinich would make it an arm of the treasury. the others would make changes to the mandate for the federal market committee's governance and as ranking member of this

committee i want to focus on the federal reserve's jewell mandate of maintaining stable prices as monetary policy. and the imbalance grows since 1978 better known as the humphrey-hawkins act, set four benchmarks for the economy. full implement, price stability and balance of trade and money. of full and balanced growth act mandated board and the federal reserve submit reports to congress on the status of the u.s. economy and the nation's financial welfare. the humphrey-hawkins charges the federal reserve with a dual mandate maintaining stable prices and full employment.

currently the unemployment rate is 8.1%. since president obama took office in january of 2009 the unemployment rate has gone from 7.8% around moderation to 10% as the impact of the financial crisis spread. to 8.1% today. i do believe the u.s. economy is heading in the right direction with the proper nudge it can probably improve even more. as of march the consumer price index was 2.7%. over the past year it declined from february of this year, 2.9%. during the same period the energy index has risen 4.6% and it has increased 3.3%. both increases are smaller than

west month. in contrast the change in the index for all items, less food and energy which was 2.2% in february added up to 2.3% in march. all of these factors play an important role in getting america back to economic growth and prosperity and i look forward to witness's testimony. mr. chairman, i would yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now i yield to dr. heyward. >> thank you. with great pleasure i anticipated testimony from our distinguished colleagues. we have a great challenge before us because obviously a central bank, our central-bank, the federal reserve, we have cherished its independence in implementing monetary policy and yet the congress has to

establish monetary goals and hold the federal reserve responsible and gives congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. there is a dynamic tension between the independence of the fed and its accountability to us so it is going to be very interesting to hear your proposals as to how we reach that balance. in specific with regard to the dual mandate ben bernanke has said many times that he does not perceive -- he does not perceive an inherent conflict in the dual mandate because as i understood him, serving the goal of price stability clearly works favorably toward having an economy that will work and that

will enhance employment prospects for all those who need work and his warning which he expressed diplomatically regarding our fiscal policy having implications for monetary policy that it cannot overcome forever and ever by accommodation, we see his warnings seem to be borne out in the fact several years of accommodative monetary policy have not resulted in the kind of enhancement in economic statistics we like to see. i look forward to testimony and thank you for all the work you have done on this crucial topic and i yield back.

>> mr. chairman. of the like to ask unanimous consent -- >> we already ask unanimous consent without objection to make sure. if the gentleman from minnesota would like to make an opening statement he can do that. >> thank you for your chance to make an opening statement and address this important topic. i don't have so much a statement as questions i would like to put out on the table for discussion and hope we hit them in the course of our afternoon. my question is the dual mandate isn't the problem. the fact is to the degree that we had challenges in monetary policy, has the dual mandate been responsible? if not, why the focus? i am curious if anyone can point to any instance in the last 70 or 80 years when the dual mandate requirement required the fed to downplay their preferred anti-inflation aac