treasury and with the federal reserve? >> it was about announcing everything at once. >> i understand. but the timing is interesting. let's announce it in january, not in december. was there something critical that happened in in wall street that made it better in january than december? >> there was not an agreement in december. >> i'm sorry? >> there was not an agreement in december. >> there was not an agreement among whom? >> among us. us being the federal reserve and the treasury. >> so there were discussions but not an agreement in december. >> there were discussions but not an agreement, yes. >> did those discussions involve the secretary of treasury himself and a the chairman of the federal reserve himself? >> yes, they did. >> and yourself? >> yes, they did. >> and the agreement was let's hold off until january because we're not in agreement about when what to disclose and when to disclose it? >> we did not have an agreement on the details or the amounts. >> were the reports that you were reluctant to accept t.a.r.

institutions must realize that every time they make an irresponsible decision or a risky bet, the federal treasury will not come to their financial rescue. financial bailouts are a slippery slope and set a dangerous precedent. when the federal government begins to arbitrarily pick winners and losers, fairness, equality, and the free market are tossed out the window as evidenced by bear stearns government bailout and layman brothers allowed failure. this administration, the federal reserve, and the federal treasury must release their tarp records and disclose in full their bailout money, how it's been spent, who the money has gone to, and the reason why some received help and others were allowed to fail. this money belongs to the taxpayers. we have a right to know. for these and other reasons, i'm calling on this congress and the administration to have a series of comprehensive hearings to determine what exactly happened, who was at fault, and what is the best way to restructure this flawed system. and how are the taxpayers going to get their money back from these bailouts? status quo is not accept

the federal reserve treasury -- the federal reserve treasury and ftse have taken steps to provide bankswith liquidity for -- and fdic have taken steps to provide banks with liquidity to insure debt issuance and capital injection concerns remain that a deepening recession could threaten the solvency of some banks and amplified the financial crisis. confidence in large measure is determined by the current and future shape -- a future state of bank balance sesheet. it is important that banks have a clear picture of whether they current downturn. it is welcome news that the obama administration is set to announce that some of the nation's largest banks will soon be able to repay billions of tarp funds. however, the fed has imposed additional requirements on banks that proposed repaid capital that they receive under t.a.r.p. since the stress test enable them to raise the money needed by bains, this raises questions about what is assumed about repayment of t.a.r.p. funds. some banks seem reluctant to perform their normal rules as providers of credit. i was honored to justify recently in new y

and that all three parties, treasury, federal reserve and bank of america agreed to that. how do you reckoncile your testimony today with what you told the board on december 30th? >> we were working -- we had an agreement that we would work towards a solution. but during even from december 30th until the time that we signed the agreement, there was back and forth in terms of amounts in terms of structure and in terms of securities to be included in what was then called a wrap. so there was we had an agreement for a solution but we didn't have any kind of agreement as i would think of it as a business person. >> well, what about commitments? what was your understanding of the commitment? that word used nine times in those minutes. >> commitment to work toward a solution. >> well, but it says that you -- you received as part of that commitment detailed oral assurances from the federal regulators with regard to their commitment. >> yes, sir. >> that sounds like more than a commitment to find a solution. that sounds like it's pretty pr detailed and we've already worked out the

we've learned the department of treasury and the federal reserve were involved in discussions about how to be disclosed. we know in october of 2008 mr. paulson brought the ceos of the largest private banks in america to the treasury department and demanded they accept nationalization of their bank in exchange for amount of money of the government's choosing. i understand the significant challenges that our economic system faced last fall. i understand their intention to do what they thought was in the best interest of the economic system as a whole. we must understand the full story in what happened in the banking project so when the next crisis occurs we can understand the limit of government action in a free and civil society in addition to important questions regarding bank of america's transaction with merrill lynch, i hope mr. lewis can shed light on his personal interaction with government officials. i intend to ask him about the participation -- about his participation in initial capital injections, and to what extent they were forced upon bank of america. as someone from an auto

the idea is that cost the federal treasury billions of dollars a year. they looked at the level of those benefits and decided to tax it at a certain level. or tax people at a certain income level. that could bring a lot of money to help finance reform. it is a very attractive pot of money, but fraught with political risk. in policy there is quite a bit of support for it. some of these high-cost benefits if they encourage over use of health care, democrats and republicans like this idea, but union groups have said that for their members, they say that would hurt their members. there will be political struggles. host: didn't barack obama campaign against this proposal? guest: john mccain 1 a to give you a tax credit. the president disagreed with that. he understands for congress is on the table. that give and take between the white house, congress, they have to find a way to pay for this. it may stay on the table. host: our last caller from massachusetts on the democratic line. caller: i have been listening to this argument for quite some time. they always

followed in january by significant in intense negotiations involving bank of america, the federal reserve, the treasury, federal deposit insurance corporation and the office of the comptroller of the cancer and-- currency regarding key transactions including the type of assistance to be provided, the size the protection of the assets to be covered, the terms for payments, the fees and length of the facility. the agreement in principle on these items was reflected in the term sheet that was not finalized until just before its public release on january 16, 2009. the federal reserve board and the treasury completely and properly disclose the information is required by the congress in the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008. .. kaput the actions taken and highly unusual circumstances in the face of grave threats to our financial system and economy. if to avoid situations in the future, it's critical the administration, congress, and regulatory agencies of work together to develop a framework that strengthens and expands the supervisory oversight and includes four of a broader range of tools to pro

the argument for increasing nearly any account in this bill but since we can't spend the whole federal treasury on homeland security, we must base our priorities on risk. the subcommittee has done this with respect to the identification and removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes. in other words, illegal aliens who have proven their capacity to do harm in our communities. the bill continues tradition of recent bills by targeting $1.5 billion of immigration and customs enforcement appropriations for this priority. an effort that the president and secretary napolitano wholeheartedly support. part of this funding furthers development of the secure program which provides a productive approach for federal immigration agents to work closely with state and local law enforcement while distinguishing traditional federal role of enforcing immigration law from the local role of prosecuting criminal violations. week of heard from many law enforcement and community groups about the importance of keeping a bright line between immigration enforcement and local community policing. and secure commun

>> among us, us, the federal reserve, and the treasury. >> there were discussions, but not agreement in december? >> yes. >> today and salt -- today involve the secretary of the treasury himself and the chairman of the federal reserve and yourself? >> yes, they did. >> in the agreement was let's hold off until january because we're not in agreement yet? >> we did not have an agreement, and we did not agree on all the details or the amounts. have an agreement on the details or the amounts. >> were the reports that you were reluctant to accept t.a.r.p. funds true? >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear. >> there was a report that you did it not want to accept t.a.r.p. funding. is that correct? >> it is true that we did not think we needed the t.a.r.p. funds at the time we were asked to take them. >> was there any connection between your reluctance in accepting them and the

the federal government has no business using the federal treasury to support state projects. obviously things have changed considerably since then. but at the time some bought that argument that people in new york thought the real reason for this very surprising veto is that medicine suddenly realized that most of the money that would be flowing out of this bonus bill would be doing to a new york for its erie canal project. and so you have -- and the new york goes ahead it right away. the state legislature approves of projects and bonds it with state issue bonds which is also very unique. but you have this very intense competition between the new york and virginia. new york is essentially winds, at least the commercial part of the competition. there are some other things i'd think we can talk about. i forgot to start my clock to see how long have been going, but of what to say something. it's not actually in the book. but there has been a lot of talk lately about the national infrastructure bank. i don't know if people are aware of it. it is in the obama budget. senator dodd

arguably, he says, on constitutional grounds that the federal government had no business using the federal treasury to support state project are obviously things have changed considerably since then, but at the time some botnet argument but people in new york thought the real reason for this, this very surprising detail is that madison suddenly realized that most of the money that would be flowing out of this bonus bill would be going to new york for its erie canal project. and so you have -- and in new york goes ahead right away, state legislature approves the project and fund it with state issued bonds, which is also very unique situation at that time in the country. but so you have this very tense competition between new york and virginia and with the erie canal. new york essentially wins at least the commercial part of the competition. there some other things i think we can talk about. i forgot to start my clock to see how long i've been going, but i wanted to say something -- talk about something that's not actually in the book, but there's been a lot of talk lately about a national infrastruc

taxes and you don't have to pay taxes as part of taxable income in the idea is that costs the federal treasury billions a year. so if they looked at the level a bit of those benefits and decided to tax at a certain level or decided to tax people of a certain income tax on the health insurance that could bring a lot of money to the federal government to help finance health care reform so they are looking at that with a perhaps tax benefit of with the federal employee valued at about $15,000 a year or would they go to 17,000 or tried to go higher risk is an attractive pot of money but it is fraught with political risk of. >> host: damages in their? >> guest: in theory and policy there's quite a bit of support because there is some feeling that some of the high cost benefits that if they encourage over use of health care you that democrats would like this idea and republicans and health care analysts to like the idea but union groups have said that are members of a lot have gone less -- they have your wages because their health care is more generous of that tax would help them and unions tend to

were there specific details that the federal reserve and treasury told you not to disclose to your shareholders? >> no, sir, neither secretary paulson nor the chairman of the federal reserve, mr. bernanke, ever told me not to disclose something that we thought should be publicly disclosed. >> okay. mr. kucinich referenced e-mails and i wanted to get on the record, have you seen -- have you seen the e-mails before today? >> no. >> and i want to make sure we got inthat on the record, mr. chairman, with all due respect to you. as i asked earlier, you've been involved in a number of merger and acquisitions, your institution has been involved in dozens upon dozens over your career with the bank. to your knowledge have there been material adverse change clauses included in previous deals of this sort? >> virtually every acquisition would involve some material adverse change clause and not totally uncommon to have them invoked. >> has your institution invoked this clause before? >> yes, sir, we invoked it on a deal with sallie mae. >> all right. >> looking at the list of federal reserve regulators who

mortgage rates and spreads have also bl reduced by the federal reserve's programs of purchasing agency debt. however, in recent weeks long-term treasuries and fixed-rate mortgages have increased. greater optimism by economic outlook and technical factors relating to the hedging of mortgage holdings. as you know, last month the federal bank regulatory agencies released the results of the released the results of the superer advisory capital assessment program. the purpose of the exercise was to determine for each of the 19 u.s.-owned bank holding companies with assets exceeding $100 billion, a capital buffer sufficient for them to remain strongly capitalized and able to lend to creditworthy borrowers even if economic conditions over the next two years turn out to be worse than we currently expect. according to the findings of this exercise, under the more adverse economic outlook, losses of the 19 bank holding companies with total an estimated of $600 billion during 2009 and 2010. after taking account of potential resources to absorb those losses, including expected revenues, reserves and existing capital cushions, we determined that 10 o

he said that there was no way the federal reserve and the treasury could send us a letter of any substance without public disclosure, which of course we do not want. do you remember that? >> i do, yes, sir. >> you know, that sort of -- i was raising this because of the answer that you gave to my colleague from virginia, mr. connolly, i didn't get that point, that you actually sent that memo. i mean, it seemed to me that in his question that didn't come out. >> may i give you the context. >> sure. >> i had called mr. bernanke and said is there something you can give us in writing because my board is concerned that everything is verbal and we have nothing concrete and going in towards the end of the year and about to have to consummate this deal without anything in writing. he said let me think about it. and the next call i got was from hank paulson. and he told me that first of all, if they gave us any kind of agreement it would be so watered down that the board would not find it satisfactory and secondly that they did not want disclosure. he was talking about the government not wanting to

federal reserve will announce a list of banks next week that we believe are sufficiently sound and able to lend that they are eligible to repay the t.a.r.p., with, of course, interest. and that the treasury accepts that recommendation, then we will see some repayments of the initial t.a.r.p. outlays. with respect to the talf, the federal reserve's program for asset-backed securities, we have extensive protections, which i'd be happy to detail if you'd give me a few minutes. but we're very comfortable that this program is, on the one hand, very effective in opening up the markets for consumer credit, auto loans, student loans, small business loans. at the same time i think the credit risks, especially to the fed itself, are quite minimal. >> has the fed done any work to determine what the likely pool of savings available for borrowing, may be foreign markets, world market, global credit markets, and to what extent we'll have to advance substantial from the saving pools and account pools in order to meet our debt requirements for the foreseeable future? >> yes, we certainly looked at that. i think it's an interesting point even though as the federal government's borrowing has skyrocketed,

along with congress and the treasury department, the federal reserve has taken action to try to help the credit markets and you talked about that a little bit already. and we thank you for that, to try to in the i was you said, one of the toughest downturns we have seen since the great depression. let me ask two questions. you touched on this some. you touched a little bit on the sectors that have improved. but let me go back to that on the credit markets, which ones are improving, what are the areas that are still lacking that need attention to improve to get there, and specifically thinking more about how long will it take to -- for additional credit to be available for consumers of small businesses. because i was home this past week, and i talked to a lot of folks. they still tight in the business sector. car dealers are having a difficult time and a lot of places in getting people qualified to buy the vehicles

federal and treasury reserve asked tus to delay action and expressed significant concerns about the systemic consequences and the risk to bank of america. we explore government support. we both were aware the the system was in fragile condition and a collapse could hasten the crisis. bank of america concluded that proceeding with action with governmental support was the better course. this made sense for bank of america and shareholders. it made sense for the marks. i believe committed people with good intentions in the private sector and the government were desperately hard in late 2008 to prevent a collapse of the global financial system. six months later it's easy to forget just how close to the brink our system became. i will never forget. i believe the efforts will be well remembered long after any current controversy is forgotten. with that, sir, i'll conclude my remark remarks. >> thank you for your statement. let me begin the question. let me ask unanimous consent that we have ten minutes on each side initially. then after that five minutes for each member. of course, if we need a se

that money was committed by treasury department and the federal reserve and mr. lewis is here today as the c.e.o. of bank of america thanks to the commitment of those funds through a seer as of events that unfolded through the end of december 2008 and into early january 2009. due to the secretive and unaccountable conduct of the fed throughout its interventions addressing the current financial crisis, many questions about the bank of america-merrill lynch deal and bailout have until today remained unanswered. some of the key questions have been, were the merrill lynch losses that precipitated bank of america's distress call to the treasury on december 17th the first such accelerating losses bank of america observed at merrill lynch since agreeing to purchase the company? did the government believe that bank of america had a credible case for abandoning the deal? did the federal reserve compel bank of america to complete the deal against its will? or, did bank of america's mistakes and miscalculations more than any other single factor cause the experienced corpora

bernanke who stated that he had spoken to other federal regulators and we are informed of the commitment of the corporation by the fed and the treasury that all concur with the commitment of the federal regulators obviously to the voa. what is that reference to and what is the nature of the commitment he is referring to? >> as i mentioned before we did inform the treasury and fed informed the fdic and occ about the situation and about the fed and treasury commitment to working in good faith with bank of america

caller: how come the federal reserve has now taken over the united states treasury? it is not back bygold or anything. when you look back in history when john f. kennedy -- he quit the federal reserve and it issued silver certificates. then he was assassinated. i think it has a lot to do with the federal reserve. guest: maybe two points. one on the tarp in support of mr. obama, senator mccain also supported the tarp program as did the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, the house republican leader, john boehner. the bush administration was the one who came up with the tarp program. it was supported strongly by the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke and bipartisan leadership. the rank and file never liked the program much. to the caller's other point, with the federal reserve -- one of the interesting questions is just how powerful the fed is. it has been very aggressively getting the financial system stabilized. most people think they have done a good job, but will have a difficult time removing programs to return to more normal operations. there are

how the treasury, federal reserve and other agencies worked overtime to try to prevent additional failures, additional crisis. fortunately the congress provided the t.a.r.p. funding and in early october. ended october there was an incipient local banking crisis that involved responses by policymakers around the world, the u.k., australia, japan germany and elsewhere. >> anna was able to join in that effort because of the t.a.r.p. money. we averted a global financial meltdown which in my opinion very likely would it created a depression like environment in the united states far more severe than the recession we have seen recently. >> thank you mr. chairman and i gave you your shot and now i'm going to come back you. the thing we have to decide is what we are going to do in the future and how we are going to handle it in one of the things in the last several months i have been involved with and investigations in everything from the madoff case to other transactions in the market, but studying the inside of our regulatory authorities i find that although they may have the authority, they may

those involved in regulating the bank of america and in the transaction that would have been the treasury, federal deposit insurance corporation and office to control currency who were well informed. >> according to the new york general mr. cuomo said mr. paulson kept the sec out of the loop about efforts to push the bank of america merger with merrill lynch it seems to be backed up by the following exchange between your general counsel, scott alvernia as, and a new york federal official. the new york fed official is asked have we conveyed anything to the sec regarding the bank of america situation? the know something's up. how much if anything has been shared with the sec? mr. alvarez said i did discuss with sec. bank of america can plant someone did talk to the sec with a result the sec called late last week to say that they heard the bank of america was negotiating a deal with the u.s. government and to ask bank of america to explain the unexpectedly high losses at merrill lynch. you didn't direct any of those? >> i did not. >> does mr. elder is work for you? >> he does. >> he did this on his o

since not enough people apparently want to buy the treasury bills at lower interest rates the federal reserve is stepping in and buying them in an attempt to keep the rate done. so far, the fed has purchased $481 billion in mortgage-backed securities, $130 billion in treasuries. the intense of the program is to reduce the treasury yields and interest rates but some say it may be backfire. a "forbes".co forbes.com articls could have a different impact, could actually cause inflation rather than -- and even cause a rise in treasury bond yields. this is what he said: -- quote -- "this can become counterproductive to the extent that you stoke inflation fears and you get an inflation-risk premium built in to the bond yields, you can't ease that away. you do have to be careful and more measured than that." in other words, when there's a perception which may be reality that not enough people are willing to buy these treasury bonds at lower rates because they think even 4% may not be enough because they may fear that inflation is going to be 6% or 7% just down the road and they don't want to

you may reb remember that back in early february treasury and federal reserve announced scap, yet another acronym, this time to assess the ability of the 19 largest bank holding companies to remain well capitalized, even under adverse circumstances. the results were reported just recently, and so for our june oversight report, we examined the stress test. we went back and took a hard look at the stress test. we had been working on it now over a month, since the program was initially announced. and here are sort of our headline findings. you had a chance to look at the reports, but i want to make sure it is out there. we looked first at the model for calculating a report. we looked at the economic assumptions in it. we looked at the questions of replicability. we looked at the limitations of the data used in this stress test, and we made some recommendations going forward. but as to transparency of the test, and appropriate circumstances, perhaps, for repeating the stress test. so let me start by giving you some good news about the stress test. and that is, it's always good to believe thin

i can say other than we were influenced by the strong nature of the wording from the federal reserve and the treasury in the sense that they obviously felt very strongly that we did not have a mac. i also looked -- still thought we had a strategic reason to do merrill lynch despite the fact it had a financial issue. and the third i thought the downside of calling a mac and not winning was severe. all of those factors were factors in me making that decision. if i had thought that it was a mac i would have called a mac. >> i see my time is up, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentleman from maryland. as we come to the conclusion of this hearing. it's important to remember that we have heard only one side of the story today. the committee needs to hear from mr. paulson and mr. bernanke before we draw any hard and fast conclusions. i do believe in fairness. however, i do think it is fair to observe that a flawed financial regulatory process was at work in this case. we see closed doors, meetings, coded messages. motives questions and private e-mails. basically the regulators and the financial institutions see

federal reserve notes are debt- base. u.s. treasury notes are not that based. federal reserve notes would -- our last call is from angel in virginia. > caller: what a lot of people did not realize is that we started two wars and created more government. homeland security, we can do away with that and cut them down to like 5%, put them under the umbrella of the cia. we can do all kinds of cutting. that is what we need to start doing. i agree with the last caller. we probably do need a third party. i have never been on board

treasury about this. it's different. the t.a.r.p. banks all have federal regulators.he insurance companies as you know, don't have federal regulators and with the federal regulators that made the recommendations to the treasury team. so we're working our way through the various issues. >> leaving aside t.a.r.p. for a second, are there other governmental solutions, congressional solutions you would seek for us to consider that would try to right this situation? >> my view is that the better mechanism would be t.a.r.p. the -- it's difficult to see what these are state regulated entities. it's difficult to see what congress could do to help. >> i think there's enormous concern that fanny and freddie are big and maybe, too big. there's some discussion that maybe we need to have a few smaller entities to provide the gsc service. >> i've always said their portfolios are too big. one way to shrink to them would be toe shrink their portfolios over time and that's part of the senior preferred agreement. i don't think it should be done right away. i think we need to get through

. >> tomorrow we will discuss the economy and the federal reserve with former treasury undersecretary john taylor. arizona senator john mccain takes your calls at 88 am eastern and linda douglas, communications director for the white house office of health reform talks about the administrations plans for healthcare and we will look at the day's news with bob schieffer, chief washington correspondent for cbs news. washington journal live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. also on washington journal this week tom ridge, former secretary of homeland security will take your questions on thursday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> the health committee begin insinuative marking of the healthcare bill. senator chris dodd sitting in for senator ted kennedy. this is two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon everyone. i think with that the requisite number of members here to begin to proceed. let me thank all of the common you for being here and we will continue with the markup of the affordable health choice zizek. let me thank everyone. last week i felt it was productive. we had a l

on the fiscal side, the treasury is issuing record amounts of debt, over $2 trillion this year alone to support record government spending and record deficits. meanwhile the federalreserve has injected an enormous amount of monetary stimulus into the economy and has even started purchasing longer-term treasury bonds in an attempt to lower borrowing costs and further ease financial conditions. this can be a dangerous policy mix. the treasury is issuing debt and the central bank is buying it. it gives the alarming impression that the u.s. one day might begin to meet its financial obligations by simply printing money and we all know what happens to a country that chooses to monetary its debt. it gets runaway inflation and a gradual erosion of workers' paychecks and family savings. there's an increased discussion in the financial press about the negative consequences of our economic policies. just this week the yield on the ten-year treasury bond rose to a six-month high, over 3.7%, a sign that global investors are becoming concerned about debt levels and the possibility of future inflation. this is the bond market telling us that there is no free lunch. when i issue

of the corporation by the fed and the treasury commitment of e federal@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ )@ @ what is the reference to and what is the nature of the commitment? >> the treasury and the fed informed the nation about the commitment to work with the bank of america for the stabilization of the company, and i can say that the other agencies were trying to stabilize the company, this was the transaction that was on the table. there was no shade or structure of the transaction. >> my time is about to be up. when did you learn that mr. lewis threatened to back out of the merrill lynch deal merrill lynch deal and to what extent were you concerned and did you have conversations with secretary paulson that that would sort of unravel a lot of things therefore we had to accelerate the t.a.r.p. funding for b of a and did you take it or did secretary paulson take it as an implied threat if i don't get that line going to go public and let everybody know we are pulling out of the deal? >> when i first heard about it on december 17th i took that as a possibility i was concerned about but subsequently

i will wait for the federal reserve and the treasury to complete that process. >> okay.and just one more quickie. >> yes, sir. >> several firms feel that they're going to be at a disadvantage if their competitors are approved for repayment before they are. there's always competition, of course. >> yes, yes. >> have you heard that concern? how are you going to address it? >> senator, i have heard that concern. and i'm sure that the administration is well aware of that. and it will be taken into account as the announcements are made. >> senator shelby? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. allison, thank you for taking on this responsibility. i wish you well. what assurances have you been given from secretary geithner and the white house that you and the white house that you will have sufficient@@@@@@@ @ @y should manage its investments in gm and chrysler? and how long do you believe treasury will be a shareholder of gm and chrysler, if you want to? >> thank you for the question, senator. >> i must say to you that i have not been involved directly in the auto initiatives. and at

in addition, the combined financial support of the treasury department and the federal reserve of over $750 trillion to date have ensured they will remain liquid. because of this support, both enterprises have been able to maintain a critically important presence in the secondary mortgage market. their combined share of mortgage origination in the first quarter of 2009 and also in 2008 was 73% which was double the 37% in 2006. while the enterprises continue to support the secondary market, new senior management teams have worked with fhfa to develop remediation. they have made progress, but they face numerous challenges to the operations. the staffs of the enterprises and fhfa have been working hard to strengthen the safety and soundness. in the current mortgage crisis, the enterprises have focuseded on mortgage availability, mortgage affordability and foreclosure prevention. modifications taken for their own book of business are critical for eliminating their own credit losses and more

federal reserve is uniquely qualified intellectually to deal with this issue. and acting secretary geithner has put the responsibility for systemic risk in the right place. treasury runs it, the federal reserve administers it, and have the council of the various agencies to talk about it, and i like that part. there are other pieces of the recommendation that i am not as aware of that all begun, but if we sit there and don't do anything, i think we have done the country a disservice. . we will leave it there. thank you for turning us. will go to the u.s. house of representatives. their very presence or their memory may endow us with strength wrapped in gentleness, forebarnse revealed in practicality and a self-giving love which is a reflection of your creative life and goodness. may the fathers of this nation be the first and best teachers of their children, to find satisfaction and hard work, greatness and moral character and faith in powerful ways. may all fathers be blessed in their work, in their games, in sports, and in the joy of family life. this we ask of you, heavenly father, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last d

negatively impact manufacturers and farmers and create a strain on federal revenues to the national treasury. in my state and in my district and in the district in the state of the distinguished lady from north carolina, h.r. 1256 will result in job losses to the beleaguered tobacco manufacturing and farming interests and it will compromise an already overburdened f.d.a. i cannot in good conscience support this measure. and i thank the gentlelady again from north carolina and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. christensen: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and in strong support of h.r. 1256. i want to take this opportunity to thank chairman waxman for his many years of hard work on this legislation. we would not be here today passing this landmark bill without his and senator kennedy's unwavering commi

federal regulations of tobacco products. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, former treasury undersecretary in the bush administrationtaylor, on the economy, the federal deficit and the economic stimulus package. after that, senator john mccain talks about foreign policy challenges the u.s. faces. then a conversation with linda douglas of the white house healthcare reform office. later, bob schaeffer of cbs news. washington journal begins each morning at 7:00 eastern with the day's news. over on c-span 3, work

days, the head of bank of america has been growth because he says the head of the federal reserve board and head of treasury essentially twisted his arm and said the real by merrill lynch if you wanted to not. you will press the merrill lynch. regardless of how many billions of dollars they owe because if it goes down like lehman brothers the whole house of cards may collapse. that is the backdrop we're dealing with now the obama administration is throwing trillions of dollars that it but unfortunately the first rescue package was a payoff to democratic constituencies and some of the money that has been spent has been nothing short of ludicrous. they are burdening the taxpayer with a huge tax burden and the amount of taxes that will have to be spent it is horrible to contemplate. how deepen the whole we are going and how much money is being spent. now they say we take on health care which will be trained one and 1.5 trillion dollars to assume health-care that meant the united states government will crowd out the private insurance company then they will be responsible for all health-care for everybody in the

federal regulations of tobacco products. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," former treasury undersecretary in the bush administrationohn taylor on the economy, the federal deficit and the economic stimulus package. after that, senator john mccain talks about foreign policy challenges the u.s. faces. then a conversation with linda douglas of the white house health care reform office. later, bowen schaefer of cbs news. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 each morning with the day's news. over on c-span 3, work continues on health care legislation, live coverage from the senate health committee begins at 10:00 eastern. now president obama announces an $80 billion deal with u.s. drug companies to help cover costs to medicare recipients. from the white house, this is about 10 minutes. >> i want to thank you for having us here, mr. president. we certainly appreciate it. aarp is proud to stand with you, chairman baucus, senator dodd, to announce that the gap in medicare, the drug coverage gap known as the dougnut hole to all of you, will be substantially filled for millions of middle income americans as part of health refo

>> this proposal is that the treasury should have to sign off on it. the federal reserve can lend money to any entity it once in the country as long as it is sufficiently collateralized. the administration is proposing that the treasury would have to sign off on that. >> thank you all very much. [unintelligible] >> we will start tracking -- marking up in july. we will deal with compensation -- executive compensation which is very important, consumer product safety. we want to take steps forward. >> the whole thing comes together when in september? question a few moments, republican members that the house and-chief of staff rahm emanuel discuss plans for the future of health care. in little less than an hour, attorney general eric holder testifies about a variety of issues facing the justice the permit included the guantanamo bay detainees. >> in washington journal tomorrow morning, we will discuss the situation in iran with a visiting scholar at johns hopkins university. the reaction to president obama's plant for regulating financial markets from 10 members of th