program is administered effectively, we go to the meanest, biggest federal agency of all, that very same internal revenue service and say, they are going to enforce thr individual mandate that you buy health insurance. just the thought on that in some of the moments that are remaining to us this evening, does a mandate, does p a mandat does a mandate, does putting an individual mandate on people increase the number of people who carry, say, health insurance, putting an individual mandate on requirements that everyone have health insurance, does that increase the number of people who have health insurance? right now in the country, with the robust employee-sponsored health insurance program, small businesses who provide insurance in the individual markets for their employees, the compliance rate or the insured rate is

about 85%. you hear the figure of the number of people uninsured in this country and works out to be 15%. in the federal tax system, does everyone file and pay taxes who should? and the answer is no, they don't. and by the i.r.s.'s own estimates, by their own estimates, 15% of the population decide not to file or pay their income taxes. that is a pretty stiff mandate that the i.r.s. puts on it. most people don't know the penalty, but they don't want to find out firsthand because they know it to be severe. it's this severe penalty hanging over people's heads, there are some who will say, i'll take my chances. how many more people are going to buy health insurance who don't already have it if we put that on as a requirement.

and one of the other considerations is, if the fine is not as much as the insurance policy itself, then someone who believes themselves truly to be at zero risk for any medical condition says you know what i'll pay the fine and worry about insurance if i get sick. under the plan that's in the senate now, they can do that, because there will be guaranteed issue if they get sick, they can literally purchase the insurance policy from the back of the ambulance on the way to the hospital. you know, we heard a lot during the course of the debate ol health care over the last 15 months. one of the things i will never forget is the energy and enthusiasm that i encountered this summer doing town halls. we passed the bill out of the energy and commerce committee, sort of midnight on friday night, july 31. we all went home to our

districts. you started seeing the stories on the evening news of vast throngs of people showing up at representatives' town halls, both republicans and democrats whether they came out in favor or opposition to the bill. we hadn't voted on the house floor, because i was sitting on the committee, i could tell my constituents i voted no in committee and would vote no on the floor unless there were substantial changes and people supported that decision overwhelmingly in the town halls i did this summer. that doesn't mean that they said we don't want you to do anything and they had some rather specific things they would like to seekonk do to help them with the problems that they were having with either insurance companies. there were some things they thought congress could do. the approval rating for congress now is 20%.

we do not enjoy a significant amount of political capital. in order to do something this big, you really have to have the american people behind you. but we don't. and therein is the trouble that the democrats are having passing this bill. they have no republicans, but then they really didn't try and weren't interested in having republicans a year ago when this process was beginning. so it's no surprise that at this point a year later, they don't have any republican support for their proposal. their problem is within their own conference. they have 40 seats on us. it shouldn't be a problem -- they have 40 more seats than they need to pass this bill. the house is a simple majority. it shouldn't be a are problem. that shouldn't be that hard. these are people who feel the same as you. members of your same party, believe in the same things as you do. why is it so hard? it's hard because there's not the popular support for this

bill that everyone assumed would be there shortly after the 2008 election. we had an election. president obama won the election. health care was a big deal during the election. so it was naturally assumed that the american people would be with the democrats no matter what they did with health care. they didn't need republicans and couldn't be bothered, we were noisey and inarticulate and they just wrote the bill they wanted to write and got it passed without any republican votes. they are at an impasse on their own side. there needs to be some input from both sides. that has never been done before and we are trying to do that tonight. you might be able to do that if you had the people behind you. and that would be true. but they don't have the people behind them. the fact that the republicans aren't supporting the democratic

bill is actually of no consequence. their -- their problem is the american people don't believe in what they're doing. i don't see how there's a way to change that equation between now and sunday, the day we're supposedly going to vote on this monstrosity. i did hear from people about things they do want done. i maintain a website devoted to health care policy. it's called healthcaucus.org. at healthcaucus.org, healthcaucus, all one word, healthcaucus.org, under the tab, you see dr. burgess' prescription for health care reform. i've listed there the things people told me most consistently they want to see us do. people want help with pre-existing conditions. there are things we can do to provide some help and it doesn't mean an individual mandate or guaranteed issue. it means helping those people who need help. it does cost some money.

congressional budget office scored an amendment that ranking member joe barton had on our committee, it scored $20 billion, nathan deal, the ranking republican and i introduced legislation that captures the spirit of that amendment. we erred on the side of being more generous, that's a $25 billion authorization for that program, congressional budget office, $20 billion over 10 years, we plused it up by $5 billion. let's start it and see what happens. after all that senate bill comes over here and becomes law, no one gets help tomorrow, it's four years before they get help. pre-existing conditions are a problem today. we heard this over and over again in the summertime. this is something people wanted us to work on. we could work on this in a bipartisan fashion. we never even had a hearing on how to approach the problem of pre-existing conditions without a mandate. we never even had one word of testimony in our committee leading up to this. does there need to be fairness

in the tax code? you bet. why does someone in the individual market have to pay with after-tax dollars when someone working for a large corporation gets theirs paid for with pre-tax dollars. that has to be fixed. i'm not sure i know the best way to fix that, but i know we haven't even tried, we haven'ted that those -- had those discussions. we need medical liability reform, it's working in texas, it does help keep costs down in spite of what congressional democrats and the white house tell you. portability, the ability to carry insurance with you through life is extremely important, especially for younger workers. think of the relationship with your insurance company if you had a longitudinal relationship with the insurance company. there are some things that could be doing that are not that hev ii a lift and don't cost money and most importantly we could show the american people we could deliver real value and work together while we're doing it, then we could

improve the approval rates. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion in mr. burgess: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands

>> today, president obama talked about passage of a measure to help create job growth. his remarks are next on c-span. also, congressman dennis kucinich said he will vote for health care legislation. recently the ohio democrat said he would not support the measure. later, fed chairman ben bernanke testifies about federal supervision of banks. ♪ >> mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. >> president obama praised the

senate today for passing and $18 billion bill aimed at creating jobs. his comments came after a meeting with irish prime minister bill cohen. the president will sign the measure on thursday. >> i just want to thank congress for passing this morning the hire act. it is the first of what i hope will be a series of jobs packages that help to continue to put people back to work all across america. this bill will provide tax cuts to small-business is that are willing to begin hiring right now, putting people back to work. it will also provide significant tax breaks to businesses for investing in their business, so hopefully at a time when we are starting to see an upswing in economic growth that will help sustain it. the bill also will continue to improve our ability to finance infrastructure projects all

across the country. i also want to say to the republicans who voted for this bill that i appreciate their willingness to work with democrats in a bipartisan fashion to get america moving again. as i said, i hope that on a series of future steps that we take to help small businesses get financing, to help improve our infrastructure around the country, to put people back to work, that we will see more progress on that front. >> ohio democratic congressman dennis kucinich said he will vote in favor of health-care legislation making its way through the house. as recently as last week he had said he would vote against the measure because it did not contain a public option. he spoke with reporters at the capitol for 25 minutes. >> good morning. each generation has had to take

up the question of how to provide for the help of the people of our nation. each generation has grappled with difficult questions of how to meet the needs of our people. i believe health care is a civil right. each time as a nation we have reached to expand our basic rights, we have witnessed the slow and painful unfolding of the democratic pageant of striving, of resistance, a breakthroughs, opposition, and unrelenting efforts and of eventual triumph. i have spent my life struggling for the rights of working class people and for health care. i grew up understanding firsthand what it meant for families who did not get access to needed care. i lived in 21 different places by the time i was 17, including

a couple of cars. i understand the connection between poverty and poor health care, the deeper meaning of what native americans call hole in the body, hole in the spirit. i scrub -- i struggled with crumbs disease most of my adult life. i discovered 16 years ago a near cure in alternative medicine after falling a plan based diet. i have learned that difficulty the benefits of taking charge personally of my own health care, and i know with few exceptions when i needed, i have had access to the best practitioners. as a result, i have received the benefits of vitality and high energy. health and health care is personal for each one of us. as a former surgical technician, i know there are many people who

dedicate their lives to helping improve others' lives. i also know their struggles with an insufficient health care system. there are those who believe that healthcare is a privilege based on ability to pay. this is the model president obama is dealing with. attempting to open up health care to another 30 million people, within the context of a for-profit insurance system. there are others who believe that healthcare is a basic right and ought to be provided by a not for faulk -- not-for- profit plan. this is what i have advocated. i carried the banner of national health care in two presidential campaigns, and party platform meetings, and as co-author andhr 676, medicare for all. i have worked to expand health care debate beyond the current for-profit systems to unload it

-- to include a public option and an amendment to free the states to pursue single payer. the first version of the health care bill, wall badly flawed, can change provision -- contains provisions that make the bill were supporting in committee. the provisions were taken out of the bill after it passed committee. i joined with the progressive caucus, saying that i would not support the bill unless it had a strong public option and protected the right of people to pursue single payer at a state level. it did not. i kept my pledge and voted against the bill. i continue to oppose it, while trying to get those provisions back into the bill. some have speculated that i may be this time in a position of casting the deciding vote. the president's visit to my

district on monday underscored the urgency of this moment. i have taken this fight farther than many in congress care to carry, because i know what my constituents experienced on a daily basis. come to my district in cleveland and you will understand. the people of ohio's 10th district have been hard hit by an economy where welfare has accelerated upwards through plant closings, small business bailey's, lack of access to credit, foreclosures, and a high cost of health care and limited access to care. i take my responsibility to the people in my district personally. the focus of my district office is constituent service, which involves social work to help people survive economic perils. also and also intervening with insurance companies. in the past week, it has become

clear that the vote on the final health bill will be very close. i take this vote with the utmost seriousness. i am quite aware of the historic flight which has lasted the better part of the last century to bring america in line with other modern democracies in providing single payer health care. i have seen the political pressures and the financial pressures. to prevent a minimal recognition of this right, even with the contents of a system dominated by private insurance companies. i know i have to make a decision, not on the bill as i would like to see it, but as it is. my criticism of the legislation has been well reported.

i do not retract those criticisms, i incorporate them into that statement. they stand as legitimate and cautionary. i have doubts about the bill. i do not think it is a step toward anything i have supported in the past. this is not the bill i wanted to support, even as i continue efforts into the last minute to try to modify the bill. however, after careful discussions with president obama, speaker pelosi, my wife elizabeth, and close friends, i have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation. if my vote is to be counted, let it cannot now for passage in -- let it cannot now for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform.

we must include coverage for those excluded from this bill. we must free the states. we must have control over private insurance companies and the costs their very existence imposes on american families. we must drive to provide a significant place for alternative and complementary medicine, and the personal responsibility aspects of health care which include diet, nutrition, and exercise. the health-care debate has been severely hampered by fear, by a smith, and by hyper partisanship. the president clearlyñr doesn't advocate socialism or government takeover of health care. the fear that this legislation has engendered has deep roots, not in for an ideology, but in a lack of confidence, mistrust and

fear which post 9/11 america has not been able to shake. . .

>> i ask for your continued support in our ongoing efforts to bring a part bridging to bring about -- to bring about meaningful change. a single payer movement would eliminate the predatory role of private insurers by not providing health care. i have taken a detour through supporting this bill. but i know the destination i will continue to lead for as long as it takes or whatever it takes, to an america where health care will be firmly established as a civil right. thank you. >> can you tell us a little about what president obama said to you? >> i have had four separate

meetings with the president. the last one was on his trip to cleveland. he explained to me what he felt was at stake. i shared with the president my concerns about the legislation. much of it was territory we have gone over before. i cannot say there was anything new. the moments of decision and what he felt was at stake for our nation and for the hopes to make any kind of change the road gave me more to think about. i went into that last meeting with him with a desire to listen to what he had to say. in washington, the big mistake

that we get into is that we become so intractable, we forget to talk to each other. when the president of the united states wants to have a conversation with you, you take that seriously. you listen to what he has to say. he obviously has not changed my mind about what i think health care should be. this is about the bill. >> did you get anything about the louisiana purchase? >> that was not what our discussion was about. i understand that the things that i want to see in this bill are unlikely to be in this bill. why have to make a decision on

the bill as it is, not the bill as i would like it to be. >> what about the president's conversation that was different about when the administration wanted the budget and the comic bill and regulation reform because you voted against those. >> i appreciate the fact because i got an invitation to go onto air force one and given my previous record in not supporting the administration on many things, i felt that proper attire would require a parachute. [laughter] but i would say, notwithstanding the fact that the president and i have had disagreements on the range of policies, i felt it was

important to listen to what he had to say. the meeting previous to the one that i had with the president on monday was a meeting at the white house and many of you cover. myself and eight members of congress who had supported the bill, i opposed it. i left that meeting without any thought that maybe i was going to change my position. i was not thinking about that. i also left it with a real sense of compassion for our president. we cannot forget that we are human beings trying to do a job and doing what we feel best. that is something that i would say regardless of what anybody's position is on this, we have to

be compassionate. toward those that are called upon to make decisions for this nation. it is not an easy burden that he has taken up and while i have some disagreements with him still about this bill, i have made a decision. >> to the president make any sort of promises to pursue the public option at a future time? >> what he committed to is to continue to work with me on the broad concerns that i have. he did not make any specific commitments. i understand that at this point, he really is in a position where what he said is basically in the bill. it was not what happens down the road. i will take the president up on his offer to continue to work with him down the road on health care reform because this is

certainly not going to be the end of it content once the bill passes, as i mentioned, there are other areas of concern that i have with respect to health care. when you look at the effect of diet and nutrition, will have to consider that americans make choices every day that adversely affect their health that run up the cost of the system. we do not have the kind of education about that that we need. the first lady is obviously working in that area. i know from my own experience, and i am sure it is with you, for my adult life and child hood, i had debilitating illnesses. until i got involved in my own health and said of someone else telling me what they're doing to make me help the, i had to change my diet. i used alternative medicine to

try to create a shift in my own health. for me, the results were miraculous. everybody is different in that regard. people have their freedom to pursue that. i of course advocate that. i talked to the president about the role of diet and nutrition and some of the other things we can do down the road. i will stay active on this issue. this is one of the important issues i have worked on my entire life. >> it was implicated that your vote will open the floodgate for other progressives. >> if i can vote for this bill, there are not many people that should not be able to support it. you were not for the bill last time. he said there was no structure here. >> every criticism that i made,

and you could go to whatever search engine you use and pull up dozens of them easily. i maintain that the bill is flawed. it is not the bill i want. i have been vocal about that. i have to ask myself if i am going to rest on my philosophical position, which i remain committed to, and look at the american people and say, i am not going to do this. there is a moment of decision you have to make. again, not looking at the bill is you want, but as it is. the criticism that i have made, you can recall them and i will not retract them. >> can you clarify with the single most persuasive argument

was that persuaded you to change your mind? it sounded like you were suggesting that part of your decision and called the concern [inaudible] >> there were a couple things. i am in my district all the time. and i am not in washington, we are back in the district talking to people. there is a lot of confusion about this bill. people who are against it or against it for reasons that may not be entirely valid. when i think of how people are looking for something, some hope that maybe something could be changed. i kept hearing it over and over. they said something is better than nothing. that is what i kept hearing from my constituents.

you can argue with that if you want but that is a common folk wisdom that i kept hearing. at the same time, a real desire for our president to succeed. we have to look at what is going on in this country. the effort, one of the things that has bothered me, is the attempt to keep -- delegitimatize his presidency. he was elected. even though, as this gentleman pointed out, i have had some serious differences of opinion with the administration. this is a defining moment for whether or not we will have any opportunity to move off of square one on the issue of health care. even though i do not like the

bill, i have made a decision to support it in the hopes that we can move toward a more comprehensive approach want this legislation is done and to go back to your question, i think that it is not just about health care. it is about creating jobs, keeping people in their homes, enabling the president and congress to work together to have the ability to create the kind of social and economic agenda that lives up america. we stay riveted on this health care debate and if we did not get out of it, we have actually created a prison of our own making. i did not want to be party to that. i have taken the debate as far as anybody else who opposed this bill and have held the positions i have had about a single pair. >> you earlier said if there

were any concessions you received. that was not the conversation. i am not clear to go there was no nebraska or louisiana type deal. >> there was no federal regulation or insurance regulation or anything. >> node. this was not about the kind of deal making that is essentially self-defeating toward the goal and that undermines public confidence in the bill. i raised objections to those aspects that are in the bill. that is not what my support is all about. i come in from a different level which is taking a more historic, long-term view and looking at how we can empower our president and congress and the government to start to move the country forward. notwithstanding the differences we have, i reserve the right to

continue to disagree on the elements in this. we are going to keep working to shape it. [inaudible] >> just now. i have not formally contacted the white house. just so you understand, this is not some kind of day back and forth that was worked out. this is what i think and i assume the president will be notified of this position. did they ask me to support the bill? i have just been told i am almost out of time. >> were there any particular pledges on particular areas moving forward >> we did not get

into this -- is that this is it the -- spec physicist and -- specificity. i do not buckle under pressure. i have taken some positions throughout my career that most people would not want to take. i will continue to do that. i approach matters of this kind based on what i feel is right for my constituents. some would want to put me in one category or another. that is up to them. i will tell you that i will

continue to reach out and be available to answer questions about the direction i think we should go. this is one moment in time when we need to keep moving and dancing. >> with regard to your conversation, you talked about afghanistan and pulling troops out. did you talk to him about that? >> no. the only thing we talked about was health care. we had a debate on afghanistan. i appreciated the support of the speaker. the decision is made. we are going to be there. do i like it? model. that was not what this was about. >> how you feel about the senate

bill cutting through? >> -- getting through? >> i do not like much of anything about this process. i do not. if you are looking at somebody to get a blessing to the process, you are looking at the wrong person. i cannot do it. i am going to vote for the bill. we are out of time. my press person will be available to answer follow-up questions and if you need to talk to me, go for him. thank you for being here and and i think it is important that we have to be very careful that the potential of the president's presidency not be destroyed by

this debate. even though i have many differences with him about policy, there is something much bigger at stake here for america and that is what i want people to think about. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> democrats need to hundred 16 votes to pass the legislation. in addition to congressman/kucinich, four other democrats have signaled that there would likely support the bill. this is according to "@ mihill." you can read the story at a health care website. you will also find interviews and speeches. go to c-span.org/healthcare. >> you are here to announce the video library.

it is an exciting and historical day i'll take you back just for a second with how this is going to be developing. the cable industry created c-span as a public service back in 1979. in 1986, they launched c-span 2 for the united states senate. shortly after that in december of 1987, c-span began a facility in a partnership with purdue university. about a decade later, we took total control of a facility that began to archive and record every single minute of c-span programming. the house and senate proceedings, the hearings, the speeches, everything you've come to know from c-span. over that time, it's developed into quite a large archive. we initially sold videotapes and then d.v.d.'s. as the internet grew and expanded, we began streaming a lot of that video. there's a team out in indiana

led by dr. robert browning and 10 archivist who over the last few months have been digitizing these archives. content starting from the early days in 1987. today we're announce hag the entire archive is available for streaming. it's fully searchable. it's a resource for a lot of people to use in a lot of different ways. we look forward to inviting our audience to browse through the arkifes, take advantage of the library and use it in a myriad of ways that they'll find it available. host: the you walk us through it? guest: sure. there's a couple ways to get to it. the easiest way is to go to cspan.org, and in the right-hand corner, you'll find a link. click on that link, go to the video library. you'll see that you can easily find lots of information.

there's ways of going into the library and looking at what's been most viewed. you can see recent programs. you can see programs that people have been sharing. when you look at these things, you'll see that it's a simple icon that you can click on to go to the video. to learn more about it in the top right-hand corner of that page, you'll see there's a blog with lots of postings on how to use the library. we think one of the easiest ways for people to do it is to do personal searches. there's been 115,000 different people that have appeared on c-span during that time. to find one of those people, you simply can go to the video library and type in their name. clearly, presidents, members of congress, everyone's in there. one search that we've done is if you want to search for supreme court justices, all the confirmation hearings since 1987 are in there. say you're interested in the

chief justice. you can type in john roberts and click there. up comes the biopage for that person. each of the 115 people have a biopage like that. you'll see chief justice roberts comes up and you'll go to his history. you can go to that and he made a speech this week, or last week at the university of alabama that made some news where he talked about the state of the union. you can go to that clip, click on it, and do what's called a text search. so maybe you're not interested in watching the entire speech from the chief justice, but you do want to see what he said about president obama and attending the state of the union speeches. you can search in the transcript and type in "union," and up will come in the transcript where that specific quote is in the speech. you can then clip that. you're seeing on the screen how you can find that exact quote,

move the little -- slide those little bars across and clip the exact frame of reference that you want. what we think is really powerful and a lot of fun with this is you can take that clip and share it in multiple ways. you can imbed that clip in your blog. you can share it via e-mail. you can see where you can share it to facebook, you can tweet that clip out. it's a great opportunity for fans of public affairs programming to come in, find what they think is valuable and relevant, important for them, something that helps drive home a point that they're advocating for, pull that clip and share it with their audience. host: who is it geared towards? guest: a lot of people. certainly educators, historians, people very involved in public affairs. certainly students with use the video library. we're finding that -- we got some blogs yesterday from jazz

aficionados, who wrote in a blog the last thing they expected to find on c-span was a lot of good information about jazz. but they found in the library clips of people talking about -- members of congress talking about their favorite jazz. or talking about jazz at the national press club and how people need to learn more about jazz. certainly people following the issues of the day with use it. for instance, health care has been such a big issue this year. we have followed the health care process, so if you want to get the most up to indict stuff, you can find the mark-up proceeding from this week. if there are 880 hours of content related to health care debate and discussion since obama became president in january of 2009 in the library. so you want to see this week's mark-up, you want to see president obama when he addresses the joint session of congress. those things are all easily

searchable on there. so a tremendous resource for people following the issue of the day. host: how about historical perspective? guest: health care is a very good example to find that. many people are referring back to the 1990's when the clintons pursued health care, and we've got a fun clip, i think, from 1993 and that discussion. >> the government-run health care system. i do share his intention to me >> the chairman's joy holding meetings on a government run health care system. i do share his intention to make the debate and legislative processes as exciting as possible. >> i am sure you will do that. >> we will do the best we can. >> you and dr. kevorkian. tonight's c-span will be coughing the tv radio correspondent dinner. are light-hearted moments

captured in the video library too? guest: we think they are. one of the times where there are a lot of light-hearted moments are in the big social dinners in washington that we cover. the white house correspondent, where big-name comedians oftentimes come in and give speeches. the political actors in this town make speeches that are oftentimes funny. we have one clip from that that we'll share with you. >> ♪ tell me what is your name >> m.c. rove >> he's rapping and chilling and showing his job he will do it without fail get out his gun because he's shooting quail this man will never stop look at him jumpling up and down ready to hop it's tell me you never saw this man move doing the dance the the karl rove dance ♪

guest: there's a special section within the video library for tracking members of congress. you go to the video library and up on the top bar you'll find a button that says congress. you can track your member or every member of congress. when you see that on there, you'll find that it lists the people who have spoken the most on the floor of the house and senate or you can separate it by the least of the house and senate. you can watch for individual members of congress. you'll find not only their biopage, but a tremendous record taken from the congressional record of congress. the congressional record itself can be changed slightly, updated as it gets updated. this record that you can find on c-span is the exact proceeding of what happened on this house or senate floor. host: how is this funded and what's the cost, and why do this? guest: the important thing for the viewer and the user of the

c-span video library is it's completely free to them. the cable industry made the commitment back in the late 1970's to have a public service channel. it grew to three channels. now it's developing with the growth of broadband and video online. the cable industry agreed with us that it's a resource that should be made available. it's important for democracy. and we've heard from the industry great pride in allowing us and encouraging us, in fact, to make this kind of content available to as wide an audience as we can to make it as searchable and user friendly as we can, to make an important contribution to the democratic process. host: if you were reading the newspaper this morning, you may have seen this ad in a variety of papers. tell us about the ad and the blog features of the website. guest: unusual for c-span, we took out ads in several major newspapers today, full-page ads announcing the launch of the video library. within it you'll see dozens of

pictures of people who have appeared on the network over the years that the library has been archiving content. if you'll go to cspanvideolibrary.org and see the blog posting up at the top, you can click and see that ad and play an interactive game and see if you can name all those people that have been in the library. the blog will help you with a lot of resources. host: peter kiley, thank you so much for talking with us >> tomorrow morning, representative pete sessions. after that, we get an update on the spring elections and britain with adam bolten. "washington journal" starts each morning with seven -- at 7:00 a.m..

you're watching public affairs programming on c-span and up next, fed chairman bernanke testifies on capitol hill about federal supervision of banks. after that, we hear from the education secretary who is pushing for changes to the u.s. secretary -- to the u.s. education system. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. you can sign up for our schedule alert e-mails @ c-span.org. >> ben bernanke expressed some concerns with the financial regulations bill making its way through the senate. he testified before house financial services committee

along with former federal chair reserved -- federal reserve chairman paul volcker. [gavel sounding] >> will the photographers please stand down? the only thing we could see is volcker. now we can see everybody. this hearing will come to order. it is an important hearing that is relevant to the legislative task before us as members know. the senate had been considering very much the question of what the supervisory breach of the federal reserve should be. we obviously done with this in a

bill that passed the house. we will now go into conference sometime in april or early may and one of the questions will be the appropriate role for the federal reserve. this is a subject which the chairman of the subcommittee on monetary policy has given a great deal of attention to. it predicts many of us have felt that the senate's initial instincts were insufficiently recognizing the importance of the role for the federal reserve. there has been some movement and the differences are less than they were. i now believe that we're entering a range where the desire and the need for a bill the greater than any significant individual difference.

i believe we are going to be able to make some movement. an important part of this is how should the supervisory role of the fed be structured. we are pleased to have the chairman and the past chairman with us to talk about this. while we are here, i want to make a couple of announcements that are relevant. i received a letter this morning from our colleague from ohio and from the ranking member asking for hearings into the information that was contained in the examiner's report on lehman brothers. that is obviously something we should do. it is something that we address in our legislation, this whole question of off-balance sheet activity is a -- is important. we lost that week and we are doing make up the days. in april, we will be having a

hearing. it will be a full committee hearing because the people involved include some people at the department. we will be having that hearing and we will proceed today with this hearing on the question of how to do the regulations. i am going to yield back the balance of my time so it will be made available to the chairman of the subcommittee and i will now recognize the ranking member but the driving force here and the member who has put the most effort and considerable thought into this is the gentleman from north carolina. i will not turn the gavel over to him and he has the remaining three minutes to allocate as he

chooses. the gentleman from alabama is now recognized. >> as congress looks at ways to reform the country's financial infrastructure, we need to ask whether bank supervision is central to central banking. it is worth examining whether the federal reserve should conduct monetary policy and at the same time, if it supervises banks or whether it should concentrate exclusively on this macro economic responsibility. it is no exaggeration that the health of our financial system depends upon giving this answer correct. frankly, the fed's performance as a holding company supervisor has been inadequate. in spite of oversight, many of the large complex banking organizations excessively leveraged and engaged in off- balance sheet transactions that helped precipitate the financial crisis. just this past week, the report

of the lehman brothers examination was made public. it reports how lehman brothers used accounting gimmicks to hide their debt and mask insolvency. according to the "the new york times,"agencies were examiner's -- in its headquarters were located in lehman brothers. they were provided desks, phones, and computers. despite this intense on-site presence, the new york fed and the sec stood idle while the bank engaged in balance sheet manipulations detailed in the report. this raises serious questions regarding the capability of the fed to supervise banks.

it is not clear that oversight release informs monetary policy. it supervision does not make monetary policy this -- policy decisions better, the to do not need to be coupled. one said that the responsibilities in one institution is like asking a plumber to check the wiring in your basement. it seems that when the fed is responsible for monetary policy and bank supervision, its performance in both suffers. macroeconomic issues cloud supervisory judgments and therefore impaired safety and soundness. there are inherent conflicts of interest that they may conducting monetary policy that heights mistakes by predicting the supervisors. an additional problem arises

when the supervision of large banks is separated from small institutions. under senator dodd's proposal, the fed would supervise 40 or 50 large banks. 7500 banks or so would be under the regulatory purview of other banking agencies. if this were to happen, the fed's focus on the mega banks would disadvantage the regional and community banks. on this, you and i are in agreement that there should be one regulator looking at all of the institutions. hr 3311, the regulatory plan would correct these problems. it would refocus the fed on its monetary policy mandate by relieving it of its regulatory and supervisory irresponsibility and reassigned

to other agencies. by contrast, the regulatory reform legislation passed by the house in december represented the largest expansion of the fed's regulatory role since its creation almost 100 years ago. senator dodd has strengthened the fed even more. his regulatory reform bill empowers the fed to rikki lake systemically significant financial institutions and to -- to regulate systemically significant financial institutions. it creates a new financial protection bureau to be housed and funded by the fed. thank you for holding this hearing. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. let me see if i can use some of the chairman's time and my time

to frame this hearing in this way. we can kind of get a balanced view of what the folks are saying. the federal reserve has extensive authority to regulate and supervise bank holding companies that are members of the federal reserve system and foreign branches of member banks among others. last year, the house passed legislation that substantially preserved the fed's powers to supervise these institutions. the senate bill recently introduced by senator dodd was stripped of this authority to supervise all but approximately the 40 largest financial institutions. this hearing was called to examine the potential policy implications of stripping regulatory and supervisory powers over most banks from the fed, especially potential impact

this could have on the fed possibility to conduct monetary policy effectively. proponents of preserving robust fed supervision authorities cite three main points to support their positions that the fed should retain broad supervisory powers. they say first that the fed has built up over the years deep expertise in macroeconomic forecasting financial markets and payment systems which allows the effective consolidated supervision of financial institutions of all sizes and allows effective macro supervision over the financial system. proponents of retaining the fed supervision say that this expertise would be costly and difficult, if not impossible to replicate and other agencies. the proponents say the oversight of the banking system improves its ability to carry out its

central banking response abilities, including the responsibility for responding to financial crises and making informed decisions about banks speaking and lender of last resort services. in particular, proponents say that knowledge gained from the wrecked banking supervision enhances the safety and soundness of the financial system because the fed can independently evaluate the financial condition of individual institutions including the quality and value of these institutions collateral and the overall loan portfolio. third, proponents say that the fed's supervisory activities provide the fed information about the current state of the economy and the financial system that influences the fm 0 c and its execution of monetary policy including interest rates

setting. on the flip side, there are obviously many critics of the fed possible in bank supervision. some of these critics blast the fed for keeping interest rates too low for too long in the early 2000's which some say puled and asset price bubble and the housing market and the resulting subprime morgan -- subprime mortgage crisis. some accuse the fed of turning a blind eye to predatory lending throughout the 1990's and 2000's reminded us that congress passed legislation in 1994 to counteract predatory lending but the fed did not issue final rulings until well after the subprime crisis was out of control. other critics accuse the fed of ignoring the consumer protection role during supervisory examinations of banks and financial institutions across a wide range of financial products, including overdraft fees and credit cards and other

things. perhaps the appropriate policy response lies somewhere between the proponents and critics of the fed supervision. i have tried to keep an open mind about the bowl of the fed going forward and hope to use today's hearings to get more information as we move forward to more discussions with the senate if the senate ever passes a bill. we're fortunate to have both the current chair and a former chair who are appearing today to inform us on these difficult issues and with that, i will reserve the balance of our time and recognize my counterpart, the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> i thaink the chairman. >> markets were finding out what

could be said at 2:15. they were looking for two words, whether or not they would exist. extended period. whether this process would continue for an extended period. this, to me, didn't change the power and control that a few people have over the entire economy. the economy is virtually at a standstill and immediately after the announcement, billions of dollars can be shifted. it is a system that i think is not having anything to do with the free-market capitalism. it has to do with the managed economy and economic planning but it is a form of price- fixing. interest rates fixed by the federal reserve is price fixing and it should have no part of a free-market economy. it is the creation of credit and people making mistakes. it facilitates the deficit. congress does not want to challenge the fed because they spend a lot.

without the fed, interest rates would be much higher. to me, it is a threat that those of us who believe in personal liberty and limited government. hardly this the process help the average person. unemployment rates stay up that 20%. the little guy cannot get a loan. yet wall street is doing quite well. ultimately, with all of this power, the fed is still limited by the marketplace. if they can inflate like crazy and have financial bubbles and housing bubbles, but eventually the market says it is too big and it has to be corrected. mistakes have been made. they come in and the force deflationary. congress and the fed does everything to maintain these bubbles. it is out of control. once the change of attitude comes when that inflated money- supply decides to go into the market, prices are to win up once again and the fed will have difficulty handling that.

the inflationary expectations are subjectively determined, no matter how objective you are about money-supply, you cannot predict that. we do not know what tomorrow will bring or next year. all we know is the engine is there, the machine is there, the high-powered money is there and we will have to face up to that someday. the monetary system is what breeds the risky behavior. that is what we are dealing with. we are going to be talking about how we regulate this risky behavior. you cannot touch that unless we deal with the subject of the risky behavior coming from easy money, easy credit, artificially low interest rates and established principle from 1913 on that the federal reserve is there to be the lender of last resort. as long as the lender of last resort is there, all of the regulations in the world will not touch it and solve that problem. >> thank you. we have about one minute and 30

seconds left goes to mr. sherman. >> thank you. too big to fail is too big to exist. as we examine the power of the fed, it begs the question of the audit of the said. the fed is exempted from audits not only in the area of monetary policy but also foreign agreements. all of the efforts to defend their exclusion from all that have focused upon how it could affect monetary policy which begs the question, why is the fed demanding an exemption for a continuation of exemption of its foreign agreements from the audit process. it supervision informs monetary policy, we have to ask why the other banks are unwilling to share information with the fed and why economic statistics are not being shared not only with the fed but with the american

people. finally, as the supreme court decides that corporations can control who holds governmental posts by spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, at least in order to get a particular person selected for governmental authority, they have to convince humans to vote for them. the one exception to that is the fed regional board where corporations get to select who sits on these boards and who exercises government power without them being responsible to the voters at all. in a democracy, every agency of government the power should be responsible to the electorate. >> thank you. we are fortunate to have the chairman of the board of governors of the federal reserve, the hon. ben bernanke and the chairman of the president's economic adviser recovery board, former chairman

of the federal reserve, the hon. paul volcker. we will recognize the chairman and then mr. volcker. >> thank you. i am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the federal reserve's role and the actions we are taking to strengthen our supervisory oversight. like many central banks around the world, the federal reserve cooperate with other agencies in regulating and supervising the banking system. our specific responsibilities include the oversight of about 5000 bank holding companies, including the umbrella supervision of a large complex financial firms. the supervision of about 850 banks nationwide that are both state chartered and members of the federal reserve system -- >> will the gentleman pause for just a second.

ma'am, you are going to have to take that out of here. you are breaking the rules. you are either going to have to leave or we will have to have you removed or you will have to take the sign out. [inaudible] >> this confirms too broad set of benefits to the country. because the wide range of expertise, the federal reserve is uniquely suited to supervise large complex financial organizations and to address both safety and risks to the stability of the financial system as a whole. second, participation in the oversight of banks of all sizes significantly increase its visibility to carry out the central banking functions including making monetary

policy, lending to the discount window and fostering financial stability. the financial crisis has made clear that all financial institutions that are so large an interconnected that their failure could threaten the stability of the financial system must be subject to strong and consolidated supervision. promoting the safety and soundness of individual banking administration's requires traditional skills of banking supervisors such as expertise of examining risk-management practices. we have developed such expertise. the supervision of a large complex financial institutions and the analysis of financial risks to the system as a whole require not only traditional examination but also a number of other forms of expertise including macroeconomic analysis and forecasting, insight into regional and global economic developments, knowledge of a range of domestic and

international financial markets, including money markets, capital markets, foreign exchange markets and derivative markets, and a close working knowledge of the financial infrastructure including payment systems for procuring unsettling financial instruments. in the course of carrying out central banking duties, we have developed extensive knowledge and experience. for example, staff members have expertise in macro economic forecasting and the making of monetary policy, which is important for identifying economic risks in institutions and markets. in addition, that require indefinite market knowledge to daily per dissipation in markets to implement financial policy and to execute financial transactions. the federal reserve's extensive knowledge of payment and settlement systems has been developed through operation as some of the world's largest systems, its supervision of the settlement services and its longstanding leadership and the

international committee on payment and settlement systems. no other agency can or is likely -- or is as likely to replicate the death of relative expertise that the federal reserve brings to the supervision of large, complex banking organizations in the identification and analysis of systemic risk. even as the fare reserved function enhances supervisory expertise, its involvement in supervising banks of all sizes across the country significantly improved the ability to carry out central bank responsibilities. perhaps most important, as this crisis has demonstrated, the fare reserved's ability to identify and address diverse and hard to address threats hangs critically on the power that they have as both a bank supervisor and central bank. not only in this crisis but also in episodes such as the 1987 stock-market crash and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal reserve supervisory role

as essential for it to contain threats to financial stability. the federal reserve is making monetary policy also benefits from supervisory experience. the federal reserve's role as a supervisor of banks of all sizes, including community banks, offers insights into conditions and prospects across the full range of financial institutions, not just the very largest and provides useful information about the economy and financial conditions throughout the nation. such information greatly assists in the making of monetary policy. the legislation passed by the house last december which preserved the supervisory authority that the fed to -- that the federal reserve needs to carry out its functions effectively. the federal reserve strongly supports-regulation and closing regulatory gaps -- regulatory gaps. as we await comprehensive legislation, we have been conducting an intensive self

examination of our regulatory and supervisory performance and had been actively implementing improvements. we have played a key role in the international efforts to ensure that systemically critical financial institutions hold more and higher-quality capital, have enough liquidity to survive highly stressed conditions, and meet demanding standards for company-wide management. we have been taking the lead in addressing flawed competition practices by issuing proposed guidance to ensure that compensation structures provide appropriate incentives without encouraging excessive risk- taking. thus formally but equally important we have been leading cooperative efforts by market participants and regulators to strike the strengthen the infrastructure of key markets including the market's for purchase agreements and other derivative instruments. to improve both our consolidated supervision and our ability to

identify potential risks to financial systems, we have made substantial changes to our supervisory framework. so that we can better understand linkages between firms in markets that have the potential to undermine the stability of the financial system, we have adopted a more exclusively multidisciplinary approach making use of the expertise and payment systems and bank supervision which i alluded to earlier. we are also of meeting our traditional supervisory approach that focuses on firm by from examinations with greater use of horizontal reduce to identify common sources of risk in best practices for managing those risks. the supplement and for mention from examiners, we are developing a quantitative surveillance program for large bank holding companies that will use data analysis and formal modeling to identify vulnerabilities at the firm level and for the financial sector as a whole. this analysis will be supported

by the collection of more timely and detailed data from regulated firms. many of these changes draw on the successful experience of the supervisory capital assessment program, also known as stress tests, which we lead last year. representatives of primary function of supervisors will be fully integrated in the process. pa