>> thank you for appearing for before the committee. i represent -- represent a part of upstate new york that hosts the third fastest high-tech jobs of in the country. we have a higher share of our work force in green jobs than anywhere else in america. the innovation economy in our region is a reality that is paying bills for many families. it came about with a huge debt of planning and the investment for public and private sectors. in providing the industrial cluster that is currently under way. i am interested in your comments about the investments that need to be part of the response to a troubled economy that encourage investment in r &d, the development of skills of a labor

force that is essential, or an idea as economy and the requirement of sound public infrastructure. after 20 years of investments per worker and a policy development in the state assembly and when i was at the research and development authority, we were happy when people thought it all -- brought altogether enable people to come back. when i arrived here, i saw a lot of efforts against investment. can you develop further for us the benefit, the value added, that comes with this focus on r &d and skill sets and infrastructure? >> yes, there is a lot of evidence that clustering can be beneficial as you described. if you have a number of high- tech industries close together, they can share ideas and

suppliers, work force, and the like. the public sector as a role there. one of the great strengths of united states is our university system. many of the high-tech clusters have grown up in the context of a strong university where there is a lot of exchange between scientists or other professionals in university and the private sector and, of course, the u.s. government has many supporters in university education in direct and indirect ways. also supports at public education for young people and the high-tech industries require skilled workers, a range of people, but certainly people who are conversant with math and science is very important. there is some important roles.

infrastructure, while that is certainly a topic of debate about how much and what kind, i think most people agree pit there is certain kinds of infrastructure the government has a role in providing from roads to airports to public crime and firefighting services and a variety of things. to the extent that can support activity that is useful. research and development is an interesting question for it i recently gave a speech on this topic and talked about the consideration the role the government should play there. it is an issue debated among economists but there are some arguments that in a purely, without any government intervention, is purely basic research may be under-provided because the people doing that and don't share in all the benefits from that.

there may be some case for government encouragement of basic research. you have an r &d tax credit and that is one way and there are other ways as well, to support the national science foundation to support research and development. i think the lesson of experience is that industrial policies which attempted to dictate exactly what products are not generally very successful, there often is a role for government partnerships to help create and where the private-sector can be productive. >> do you have any sense of how we might fare with the international community in terms appeared r &d investment? >> we do pretty well including public and private. we are certainly the biggest absolute -- we have the biggest

amount, in absolute terms, of research and development investment and we have a pretty high percentage of gdp as well barracks some emerging markets like china are beginning to approach this in terms of share of gdp but we remain an r &d leader. >> thank you for joining us today. i would like to follow up on some of the questions we had earlier today and talk about policy responses. as you said, you are worried about the federal government's fiscal sustainability as we move forward. it looks to me like we don't have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to policy responses. if you look at this chart, you can see the differences in recoveries during the 2007-2011 time frame vs. 1982-1986. there is an op-ed in "the wall street journal" this morning

betts says if we had just follow the same policies that reagan followed when he inherited a bad economy, that we would have about 70 million more americans working today and our gdp per family would be about $23,000 higher. we all recognize that the constitution says the federal government has certain responsibilities story we have to provide national security and some people feel like we need to provide for basic research. i agree with that particular idea but everything else is sort of on the table when you look forward. i would like you to give me the abridged response. who is the better allocator of capital to the greater public good? is that the private sector or the federal government? >> there are some areas where the federal government is the

only provider. it is hard to get the private sector to provide -- >> just the macro view. >> i think it is generally agreed that the private sector is better and china is an example of a country which has the communist party running the show but they allow private sector activity a large role in the development of new industries. >> you've got the difference between private sector investments like keystone pipeline verses public-sector investments like xcel and drug. solyndra. the government does a pretty bad job of allocating resources. do you see anything that should this witness that would be better for the private sector to allocate resources instead of the federal government? >> and again, because of the profit motive and so on, the

private sector is often better in innovating. i don't want to get into the keystone situation. i don't know enough about it. i do know it involves a multi- state right of way and all those environmental issues. >> i am just saying, it is an example. on the one hand, you have a private investment of $7 billion and thousands of jobs created and on the other hand, you have half a billion taxpayer dollars spent and no jobs. >> to be fair, you can point to situations where government investments in the space program or the internet paid off for the public. clearly, we have a market economy. we want to use the market wherever appropriate. >> exactly, looking at the stimulus plan, if you use the most aggressive, optimistic numbers of jobs created or saved that have been promulgated, the cost of the

stimulus plan/the number of jobs is about $400,000 per job. would you say the private sector could have done better than that if we had just gave them a tax reformer tax reduction and we will leave this stimulus dollars in the hands of the public to begin with? would that have created a better economic outcome for the united states? >> that is hard to say. we were in a deep recession. one of the differences between this recession and the 82-86 was that the fed's tightening due to inflation is one of the reasons for the 82 reflation -- inflation, when the fed cut rates, that helped alleviate the recession. the other thing i would comment on is that

dividing the number -- a toll calls by the number of jobs to make is not exactly the right way to think about it because the total cost involved the provision of whatever was built are construction. >> i wasn't trying to get into a match like that. in a macro level, what would have been a better policy response? what would have produced a better benefit for the average american? $800 billion in the hands of the taxpayer? >> there are times of monetary and fiscal policy can help create better employment but the private sector clearly is where the decisions about what industries should take place. >> thank you. >> back to the chart that we just had, could ask to have that put up again? chairman bernanke, some of my

colleagues are talking about the reagan recovery a lot more. when you talk about recovery, you also have to talk about how you got in the position you are encouraged to talk about how the fed had interest rates to work with during the so-called recovery. we did recover during the recession. it is important historical to point out that with what we are facing right now, we had two wars that went on credit cards, we had a housing collapse which embroiled us into housing being dull last leg of this recovery moving forward. you cannot compare the two and say that the same solutions would have worked for this recovery. the other question i might ask you is, would you say that 2007

is that fair starting point in talking about where the recovery started? >> no, december, 2007 is the beginning of the recession very the recovery began in june of 2009. this has been a unique experience, this last crisis. we have never had a housing boom and bust and such an impact on the financial system. the financial crisis was extraordinarily severe. we came very close to a total global meltdown. while people can disagree about how much that has held back the recovery, ensure tight credit and small mortgages and businesses have been part of battery i think the monetary policy issue is important. mortgage rates in the early 1980's were 18% and letting

interest rates come down as the fed lighten up and inflation came down was certainly part of why the economy bounced back as quickly as it did and housing was one of the areas that bounced back. there is some comparability of all recessions but there are some important differences as well. >> mr. chairman, i would like to go back to some of the discussion we have had about our interaction with the economies on an international market. we are facing some decisions and i believe we need a balanced package of revenue, spending cuts, has a robust discussion about how we move forward. there are many in congress who want to implement deep, deep cuts. going back to the discussions you were having with mr. tonko, i had an interesting meeting with ford motor co. a couple of years ago and they said if we

had an energy plan that would allow ford to determine to go gangbusters whether it will be biofuels, if we have an energy policy that countries like japan have an energy policy, the eu decided to go diesel, that would really help our business sector be part of global competition. can you may be talk about energy policy and the determinants for our country to really embrace one to allow our businesses to kind of move forward together? ford knew they had to build these cells, they could build the best a diesel car and were totally competitive in europe. the lack of us having an energy policy for our nation as large as ours left of them up in the air. >> companies would like to have

clarity about what energy sources will be used, how the government will tax are subsidized different types of energy. the main issues there, frankly, our environmental as much as anything else. japan, for example, has decided to phase out its nuclear power because of the correct safety concerns. the decision on diesel i think was generated primarily by environmental issues. those of the kind of issues -- that is an area where government may make some decisions about energy policy because certain types of energy may be judged as better for the environment. putting that aside, we need to keep maintaining a role for energy markets. there is a remarkable increase

in the supply of natural gas, for example, in the united states and that is a good thing as long as we can match it in a safe, environmentally sound way. >> dr. bernanke, i want to drill down on something you talked about in general which is europe and i want to go into detail about the central bank liquidity or the dollar-swap agreements. since you have been here last time, it has grown from the agreements with various central banks from $2.8 billion to much more. where does that money come from? is that in existing reserves? where does that $103 billion come from? >> it becomes a liability and an asset on the federal reserve balance sheet. it is paid for by greater access reserves in the banking system and on the other side, we have an asset which is the money given keeps in exchange to a

european central bank. >> that would be, in layman's terms, new money, not money you took out of a maturing treasury and moved to a swap agreement, this is money set aside. >> we chose to do it that way because monetary policy currently has grades very close to zero but it will not be difficult to sterilize that to a number of different methods. >> fair enough, you stated earlier it is your current intention with all maturing securities to invest those. as the securities mature, 90% of them are less than 90 days, is your intention to reinvest those in domestic securities and reinvest them in swap agreements? >>the ecb and the bank of japan are the main counterparties that would determine what their request and and we would decide whether to grant their request. it is not our choice.

we are not looking to invest there. if the swabs run out, that will be extinguished. it will mean a comparable drop in our liabilities and assets. >> part of the $103 billion goes to europe and comes back within the agreements and are reinvested in domestic securities, does that have an expansionary effect on the domestic monetary situation that it increases the high-powered money supply a little bit, about 4%. it does not in practice have much affect and money in circulation. only the amount of excess reserves that banks are holding with the fed then it does not affect interest rates. we see it reducing financial stress, strengthening the role of the dollar in international markets and improving funding

for both u.s. and foreign banks. we don't see it as having any major implications for inflation. >> how is that different from what you were talking about with qe i and qe ii? >> they were much bigger and secondly we were buying medium to longer-term securities in the open market. in this case, the money is going medium to longer-term securities on the open market. in this case, the money is going via the ecb, they are going to finance the dollar assets of european banks. >> i understand the first half. when the money comes back, how is that different from qe1 and qe2? >> there is no change. this does not involve any change in the holding of our securities. we have an asset which is an obligation of the ecb.

unless banks are lending those reserves but, it is not going to be turning into more money. >> you have the option to lend this money to the european banks. you could do it to domestic subsidiaries. why are you not doing that? >> domestic subsidiaries came to the discount window, we would have to treat them on an even playing field with the u.s.-only banks. we do not have any lending through the discount window. from our perspective, the u.s. taxpayers perspective, doing it through a swap is much better. it is the responsibility of the ecb to take the collateral and the side who can qualify for the loan. to decide how much is needed. we are protected that way.

we are also protected in the discount window through collateral. i think this is a better way to do it. >> we have established, you have the ability to lend directly to domestic subsidiaries. you told my colleague in december you had needed the attention with the authority to bailout european banks. do you still stand by that? >> in that conversation, i was asked and i said, we have done the swaps. they had been done before the conversation. the question was, were we going to do additional things? were we going to make loans to the imf? the answer was no. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman bernanke, it is good to see you. our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried to insist that it had no impact, that it created no jobs.

according to the cdo, it lowered the recovery rate in 2010 relative to what it would have been had congress not acted at all. since that time, we have created more jobs in the last year since we have in 2005. since march of 2010, 3.2 million jobs have been created. my question to you is, had we not acted and passed the recovery act, would that have happened at all? there is the notion is only private markets that we should

use to help an economy or a recession tenement. are there times when you think public investment is necessary? >> to answer your question, the cbo calculated some effects on gdp and employment. the fed, we are comfortable with the conclusions. we think it did have some effects. so, yes. >> shifting gears. there has also been a debate over the course of the last year over what is the best way to reduce the deficit. clearly, we all share the goal of reducing the deficit as

significantly and quickly as possible. would you agree, a weapons on the other side believe and have tried to enact only spending cuts that they deem wasteful as a strategy to deficit reduction. would you agree that wasteful spending also exists in the tax code? >> well, i think the, you are pushing me into areas that are the province of congress. i support the law of the arithmetic. if you believe the government should be doing more, you should collect to do that. if you want to keep taxes low, you have to find the spending cuts. that balance is critical. people have different visions. i do not think i am the one to adjudicate that. >> i am not asking you to make

a political judgment. would you agree with the cbo who has said the tax cuts like the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts provide the least bang for our bucks? >> i think that is debatable. they provide some demand from the point of view of putting more income in people's pockets. the other issue is how do they play into the long run and efficiency of the tax code? i have not talked about it today. i think there would be a lot of benefit of thinking about our corporate and personal income tax codes and improving those, reducing inefficient exemptions, broadening the base and so on. from a purely demand-side

perspective, tax cuts to provide income, to provide spending, they may be less in some cases. you have to think about the role of the tax code in promoting growth in the long term. >> one other quick question. would you say that deficit finance tax cuts paid for themselves? >> except in very rare circumstances. i do not think many people would argue that tax cuts fully pay for themselves. the question is whether or not they improve the efficiency or growth. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you dr.bernanke for visiting with us today. this economic recovery has been long delayed.

it remains the agile. my constituents are frustrated. we are not doing some things here on the fiscal side of the ledger to get the economy moving. the real gdp growth was 1.7%. private sector forecasts indicate in the coming year we are going to be at two 0.2%. that is below the 3% growth trends in history. we have a jobs deficit, 8.6 million jobs lost in the recession. less than a third of those recovered. i am concerned about our country dipping back into recession at this point. in your interaction with officials, i would like to hear from you, what preparation our fed has made for a disorderly

default by greece or some of these other countries. i have not heard any specifics. you have indicated the fed was prepared to use all the different leaguers you had. that is the general question. i would also like you to speak to the money market mutual fund market. investment income would not cover operating expenses. there was an intervention by the united states into that market. could that be something that people begin demanding in washington? we bail out the money markets as a result of a disorderly default in europe? >> in terms of preparations,

other than beyond the swaps, which we discussed, the federal reserve has been operating in a supervisory capacity working with other bank supervisors to understand the exposures of banks to european nations, banks, economies, trying to help them manage the risks and reduced the risks wherever possible. the other set of tools we have in the event of a crisis, which, would have very adverse affects for our economy, no matter how prepared we are, is the modified authority that dodd-frank left us. we can first use the discount window as we always do as the backstop liquidity provision. if necessary, we can use the

authority to provide additional programs to lend to other institutions that are underfunding pressure. we would try to mitigate any resulting contagion from problems in the banking sector in the economies of europe. we pay close attention to money market mutual funds. the sec is the primary regulator there. they too have been working to reduce their exposure to europe. they have substantially reduced their exposure to the eurozone countries. all of that is good. >> if i could interject, is there a reason why the council created by dodd-frank to monitor systemic risk has not characterized the money market mutual fund as a systemic risk? >> it did actually in july. it pointed to them as an area

that needed more work. imagine the bailout. the things done in 2008, the exchange stabilization fund, they were outlawed by dodd- frank. those things are not available. it is very important the money market mutual funds take the necessary action to be safe. as i said, one thing they are doing is reducing risk and exposure. they have already imposed some improvement in the regulation of these funds they are considering additional steps and consulting with the federal reserve. more might need to be done in order to ensure we do not see another run at like we did in 2008. >> i will yield back my remaining two seconds. [laughter] >> thank you for coming back. it is good to talk to you.

as i said yesterday, we always seem to talk to each other. trying to sympathize everything that has been said. i have a few questions. we can be existing in our answers the sink in our answers. you may be repeating. we talked about this last time. when you say you are not worried about the increase in inflation, my way of looking about this is when you are printing money or the quantity of easing and the money is piling up, for the quantitative easing and the money is piling up, the banks are holding on to the money.

people might be stuck in money in the mattress because they are uncertain. they are not using the money. are you not worried that when they start, when we get this government in a true free market system, the money starts picking up the loss the, aren't you worried you and not going to be able to stop that? >> we have two tools to remove the money. one is to sell assets. the other is to lock up or remove the excess reserves in the banking system. when we have to raise interest rates to fight inflation, we have made it explicit whatever goal is, 2%. the markets are confident in our forecast. the private sector forecasters, they feel inflation is well

controlled and will be well controlled. we do have the tools. >> thank you. many baby boomers are retiring. 10,000 per day. the strategy to have the more elderly in our society be able to rely on less secure investments. it seems with the interest rates so low, we may be forcing our most vulnerable citizens into riskier investments. did you have a comment? >> we do take that into account. it is an issue for many people. we have to hold all the assets in the economy. a strong economy produces better returns. >> fair enough. a former federal reserve governor, he wrote an article on december 6, 2011, i am going to quote from it and have a

comment, "however well intentioned, the purchase of long-term securities, camouflaging the true cost of capital. private investors are crowded out of the market when the fed shows up as a large and powerful bidder." >> they have the best access to capital they have had in a long time. low interest rates. those who have trouble a small businesses and those who cannot access bank credit. >> you mentioned canada earlier on. >> the main reason, they have a small number of larger banks. in this case, they had better regulation.

the banks did not get involved in subprime mortgages. >> would you favor a model more like canada? >> i did not think i want to go to a small number of large banks. medium-size makes play a large role. they were right in being tougher and making sure banks do not take excessive risks. our system is much more complicated. some of the steps have been taken to provide a more systemic approach. it was less necessary in canada with a less complicated financial system. >> if you had to choose between one of the mandates, which would you rather pursue? [laughter]

>> you said you had subpoena power? in the long run, they only control inflation. price stability is a critical function. that provides a healthier economy for the long term. that being said, in the short term, in terms of supporting a weak recovery plan, like we have now. >> thank you. >> to tack on, with the statement, we know there would deliberations. you referenced -- in the next paragraph you focus on deviation. we have an expansion of the monetary base. when velocity turned back on, that is one paying higher interest on reserves must occur. what is your plan? i would argue this is made more complicated.

whether that is going to occur on time. what if the deviation is greater than the inflation deviation? with that monetary base running through a system, it is like putting a cruise missile through a goal post. how are you going to do this? how are you going to lock up on time, now that you have more emphasis? that is why these things and made more ambiguous. >> i am sure we can do it. we have the technical ability. in any situation, there is always the question of whether you tightened too early or too late. technically, we have no difficulty. i point of, the bank of england and the ecb have a larger balance sheets than we do. >> thank you mr. bernanke.

i want to turn to your speech. you say, having a large and increasing level of government debt runs a risk of economic consequences. i will start out here with increased debt. therefore, it reduces productivity growth. that results in more borrowing. from foreign governments, which then increases our future income devoted to interest payment, which comes back to increasing the amount of debt. i think that in a diagram will help my constituents to see why this is so important.

i am intrigued by your results. impairs the ability of policymakers to respond affectively. it is our role and our responsibility. unsustainable deficits, increased the possibility of sudden fiscal crisis. it can happen here. i think you have diagrammed that well. my point is, investors lose confidence. in the ability of the government to manage its policy. the fiscal policy piece of that is our role and responsibility. would you agree the economic growth from investments and savings -- not borrowing? >> sometimes, you have savers who want to provide funds to invest.

if you are a firm, you do not have a net of your own money to invest. you have savers. borrowing could be part of the progress. i do not think you want to get rid of borrowing in general. mortgages are how people own homes. from the federal point of view, if borrowing is so large that the deficit relative to the economy continues to grow, the feedback loop, higher interest rates, bigger deficits, bigger debt, it is a concern. markets can bring that forward. it is a question is, should the federal government have a long- term plan, the answer is, yes. >> can you help me with how the policies of the fed on setting

the interest rates -- how will they in fact affect investors? >> my comment about investors having access to capital, currently, the economy is far from full employment. there is plenty of the unused resources available to be put to work. we are not seeing any evidence that policy is crowding out private sector activity. to the contrary, to the extent we can secure growth, we can facilitate investment spending. clearly, when the economy is at full employment, deficit raise interest rates, they've reduced investment. monetary policy was too easily. it leads to inflation pressures.

it is a function of with the economy is. >> does a zero interest rate anchorage savers to save? >> it may. there are substitution effects. you may need to save more to get the same return. >> i am not sure putting my money into accounts where i get a zero return is what i want to do. >> suppose the fed raised interest rates. that would 30 economy back into recession. it would mean the stock market would decline. other investments would go down. it might mean increased deficit would lead to more concerns

about our federal government. we are trying to deal with the bad situation. this is one of the tools we have. >> i am not advocating a sharp increase. i am just saying there is not an incentive. >> there is normalizing policy. >> thank you for being here. i appreciate your open communication you have started. more press conferences, more communication, it is helpful. i know that is part of your strategy. i appreciate you taking that on. you mentioned about small business access to capital. that is a concern. you mentioned bank examiners are becoming more conservative in this time of instability.

that is an issue. i represent oklahoma. community bankers are concerned with the approach on compliant. the safety and soundness they have no issue with. compliance becomes a big issue. let me give you one example. the new volcker rule, that was intended to only affect big banks. our community banks have to prove they are exempt from it. you have a bank of 40 people going through pages of documents to prove they do not apply. it is adding a tremendous amount of work load that is forcing them to second-guess. when we talked about this, you said there had been some modest improvement. what improvements can we still expect? the community bankers are still not lending. they of second-guessing every bit of risk, not sure if anybody is going to come in and second- guess them.

>> i will not go into safety and soundness. your question is about compliance. many of the provisions of dodd- frank are aimed at the biggest banks. small banks should be stated the need. >> they do have to demonstrate it. >> what we are doing, we have a subcommittee of two governors, governor duke and governor raskin who was the head of supervision in maryland. they are very knowledgeable about small banks. their job, working with staff, is to try to first make sure rules that it not apply to small banks are not put in force. to provide as much clarity as we can to what the small banks

need to worry about. to help us on that, we have created an advisory council. we get their feedback. i appreciate your point. i think it is progress that we are moving away from the safety and soundness. >> the think it is getting better in the next year? it is the frequency of how many small pieces. with a bank of 40 people, they cannot keep up with the frequency. >> we have a process whereby we will try to provide guidance to small banks about what parts they can throw away. >> it would be very helpful. obviously there are a number of banks out there. they are getting the brunt of this. a separate question. it is a broader question -- issue a struggle.

we have so much sovereign debt. we are continuing to add more and more sovereign debt worldwide. at what point do we reach an sustainability? that we do not have enough capital sitting out there? there have to be some point that would be defined as unsustainable. >> at the moment, a private borrowing is way down because of the weakness of the economy. there is money out there. you are going to start seeing the crowding out. people are going to have to pay higher rates. that will have adverse affects on capital formation and productivity. i do think that from our perspective, we are the premier economy.

we are the safe haven. we have a strong interest in maintaining that. i worry less about global supply of capital and think about managing our own need for capital going forward. >> every country is competing for it at a higher rate. >> there is a supply and demand. interest rates will go up. the money will be there. the rate is so high, that will be bad for the fiscal borrower. >> that would be the definition of unsustainable, we cannot get the money of the rate we need it for. are we even close to that kind of point? that is crystal ball type stuff. you have to be watching that as well. >> for countries like the united states and the u.k., rates remain low. the bond market is very forward-looking.

a lot of this depends on what the bond markets expect soveriegn financing to be over the deacdes. it is a country-by-country issue. if we can take a strong set of policies to inshore the sustainability of our fiscal situation, i am sure the funding will be there. >> thank you. the last question. >> thank you. i appreciate your time today. i remember our discussion last year. one thing i ask my staff, to read through transcripts of the 2006 committee meeting and look at the comment. is it fair to say the fed did

not see the severity of the housing crisis? >> i think the mistake was a little different. house prices were already falling in 2006. what we did not know was what is the impact going to be? we did not have a sufficient understanding of how the fall of house prices would affect the financial system. that was the linkage we did not see. yes, we did not see the prices come in. we were aware that the housing market was pulling. i talked about it in testimony. we have learned a lot of lessons. we have changed the way we do our supervision and will now focus on the interaction between different parts of the system, looking at it from a

systemic point of view. >> looking at the economic projections from last january, you projected growth at 3.4% to 3.9%. why were you so far off? will you be that far off for the coming year? >> i would like to look at those numbers. there would two glasses of things. there were developments that were impossible to anticipate, like a tsunami in japan. the affects of the arab spring.

i think, more generally, it is fair to say that since the recession ended, we have been too optimistic about the pace of recovery. as i go back and look at the reasons, i think the two main areas, the housing sector it has not recovered the way we hoped and expected, and continued pressure in financial markets. we did not fully anticipate in 2010. >> you believe those factors were the primary reason? it was an anemic 1.7%. your figures, 3.4%. for 2012, he projected 3.4%. now you are back to 2%. pretty far off.

how comfortable and confident are you on how long we will stick at this growth? >> for testing is very difficult. we do not pretend we have a crystal ball. quote we try to do is set out projections at a level where being too optimistic is equal to being too pessimistic. >> that is the range. >> we could be better. >> i would hope it would be. we have such an anemic recovery. the worst one since the war. we are millions of jobs short. i had not seen this coming out. one of the thing i want to

mention, the transcripts, a big supporter of transparency, is there a reason you have to wait five years? >> i think it is a reasonable compromise. no other central bank releases transcript. the bank of japan does after 10 years. no other government agency to release the transcripts of confidential meetings. it has a cost to of deliberation process. the meetings became much more scripted. i think it would inhibit the discussion process and the free exchange of ideas. five years does seem to be an appropriate compromise. it is a more aggressive policy and other agencies or other central banks.

>> 15 more seconds to close. this is america. there is a bigger role than in other countries. i would appreciate it if he would step up. >> you have indulged us for two and a half hours. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] >> a couple of hearings on capitol hill this morning. we will get an update on the latest january employment numbers and the acting head of labor statistics will testify before the joint economic committee with live coverage at 9:30 eastern on c-span 2. over and c-span 3, a house energy subcommittee will hold a hearing on the obama administration's decision to deny a permit for construction of the keystone oil pipeline that would have carry oil from canada to the u.s. we will hear from the president of the trans canada corp. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> the cspan road to the white

house takes you to the candidate yvette spam my leadership cut taxes 19 times and cast over 800 vetoes. we balance the budget every single year we kept our schools first and the nation. my leadership and the obama year and begin a new era of american prosperity. >> there is a mess up in washington and they have given us a lousy foreign-policy, a lousy a budget and they have given as a lousy recession. the wonderful thing that is happening is that makes grass roots people realize that the problem is too much government. we need more personal liberty. >> if you are prepared to do what it takes to make sure that we change direction not just the presidency but the congress, the bureaucracy, the judges, the policies so that the entire system gets on the right track so that america can give our children and grandchildren a more prosperous, safer, and

better future. >> follow the candidates as they meet with voters. >> thank you so much. thank you. >> take a picture with you? >> go ahead. >> use our website to the recent video from the campaign trail and lead the reds postings from the candidates, political reporters and other viewers and social media sites at c- span.org/ campaign 2012. >> up next, today's news and your phone calls and e-mails live on "washington journal." in two hours, the house will double in and they will take in a federal administration -- federal aviation administration report. and the way that the congressional budget office congressional budget office makes decisions