mr. madoff used his own brokerage firm. his own brokerage firm was serving as the watch dog as a burning madoff the investment and pfizer. when you are your own watchdog, and nothing works. the sec has taken some effort to discourage the use of self- custodians. they have backed off under pressure. we need a true watchdog. that can only come from an independent custodian. that is not a topic today. i will move on to the protection act. i want to make three suggestions. all of all compromises and a line drawing and will be painful. insurance is costly. i remember this panel has told you that the definition of " customer" is too limited. is understandably been the tip of the fifth -- understandably limited. in looking at who to protect, i think we should look at the continued big dent in the u.s. been the most injured and least able to protect themselves. for i think that is the pensionr and small pension funds. they suffer the most concentrated loss. they are losing their requirement -- retirement security and cannot judge th

mr. madoff. over the next 12 years, the company contributed over $8 million to the plan for the benefit of our employees. on december 11, 2008, mr. madoff was arrested for fraud, and approximately 615 of our current and former employees lost their retirement savings that had been in a profit sharing account invested with mr. madoff. our plan and our plan participants are represented average american workers whose savings erisa was intended to promote and sipc was intended to protect it of our 615 plan participants, about 89% contribution balances of less than $50,000. this plan coverage is the average american worker. yet sipc has stated that only a single recovery of $500,000 is available. this is because the plants account with mr. madoff was held in the name of the plan trustee. but this was required by an administrative requirement imposed by erisa. our plan lost in excess of $8 million in contributions in the madoff fraud. if you include the false madoff profits, that would be in excess of $

mr. madoff used his own brokerage firm. his own brokerage firm was serving as the watch dog as a burning madoff the investment and pfizer. when you are your own watchdog, and nothing works. the sec has taken some effort to discourage the use of self- custodians. they have backed off under pressure. we need a true watchdog. that can only come from an independent custodian. that is not a topic today. i will move on to the protection act. i want to make three suggestions. all of all compromises and a line drawing and will be painful. insurance is costly. i remember this panel has told you that the definition of " customer" is too limited. is understandably been the tip of the fifth -- understandably limited. in looking at who to protect, i think we should look at the continued big dent in the u.s. been the most injured and least able to protect themselves. for i think that is the pensionr and small pension funds. they suffer the most concentrated loss. they are losing their requirement@@brsn Ã@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the individual pe

mr. madoff. even when the sec went out to see mr. madoff, mr. adoff has admitted that when the question was asked of him, "who is your custodian?" he rattled off the name and he was convinced he would be shut down because the custodian the not provide the services to mr. madoff. but the sec never made the phone call to find out whether or not mr. madoff was operating to that the stadium. from my perspective, the federal government failed miserably. the sec and in particular. so my question to you is this. since we were responsible for this travesty, should we not take responsibility now in trying to make the people who were impacted by our incompetents and arm -- our incompetence and are malfeasance to make them somewhat home? what would prevent the sec from doing that? >> thank you. i can respond in two ways. the fund did you talk about is certainly something congress could do. if it were determined that was the important thing to do, certainly could do that. with respect to that shortfall, the failures you have identified, that is something the

mr. madoff. and even when the s.e.c. went out to see mr. madoff, mr. adoff has now admitted that when the question was asked of him, who is your custodian, and he rattled off the name and he was convinced within next three days he would be shut down because the custodian did not provide those services but the s.e.c. never even made the phone call to find out whether or not whether mr. madoff was operating through that custodian. from my perspective, the government, the federal government, failed miserably and the s.e.c. in particular. so my question to you is this, since we were responsible for this travesty, shouldn't we take some responsibility now in trying to make the people that were impacted by our incompetence and by our malfeasance by creating a fund to make them somewhat whole? and what would prevent the s.e.c. from doing that? >> congresswoman, thank you. i can respond in two ways. the funds that you talk about is certainly something that congress could do if it determined that that was the appropriate thing to do here and certainly you could

mr. madoff. over the next 12 years, the company contributed over $8 million to the plan for the benefit of our employees and on december 11, 2008, mr. madoff was arrested for fraud and approximately 615 of our current and former employees lost their retirement savings that had been in a profit-sharing accounts invested with mr. madoff. our plan and our plan participants are representative of the average american workers whose retirement savings was intended to promote and his investment sipc was intended to protect. of our 615 plan participants, approximately 550 -- 89% -- had contribution balances of less than $650. this plan covers the average american worker. yet sipc has stated that only $500,000 is available. is it because the plants account with mr. madoff was held in the name of the plan trustee. but this was required by an administrative requirement imposed by erisa. our plan lost in excess of $8 million in contributions in the madoff fraud, and it could be in excess of $18 million. i sym

mr. madoff? only the person that was the victim. that is the problem. how could they do due diligence? maybe we should take away the right of the government to do due diligence. maybe we should let the little old lady from peoria be able to do but due diligence and go impersonally to audit mr. maalot. every citizen should be able to do due diligence. how do we do it? we do it by doing what we did you have people with badges make announcements that other people trust. that is what we do in a sophisticated financial system. everybody can investigate anything. you do not have a right. the only people who think in this mentality are people who are not victims. they think there were lucky and some of them are not. there are so many victims here that we do not even contemplate because you put money in your bank in your bank invests in a brokerage. we know the first line of defense because those are all public. but if your bank invested in a brokerage and they invested in madoff, the system loses all this money obviously, there is not love of money in this insurance fund that people thought t

mr. madoff. and even when the s.e.c. went out to see mr. madoff, mr. madoff has now admitted that when the question was asked of him, who is your custodian, and he rattled off the name and he was convinced within next three days he would be shut down because the custodian did not provide those services but the s.e.c. never even made the phone call to find out whether or not whether mr. madoff was operating through that custodian. from my perspective, the government, the federal government, failed miserably and the s.e.c. in particular. so my question to you is this, since we were responsible for this travesty, shouldn't we take some responsibility now in trying to make the people that were impacted by our incompetence and by our malfeasance by creating a fund to make them somewhat whole? and what would prevent the s.e.c. from doing that? >> congresswoman, thank you. i can respond in two ways. the funds that you talk about is certainly something that congress could do if it determined that that was the appropriate thing to do here and certainly you could

mr. ross, in the madoff chronicles what's new? >> i think there's a lot. what drove him, what it started, and his total lack of remorse. we also look at who else was likely involved? he didn't do this alone, despite his claims that he did. >> did mrs. madoff have a role? >> she did. she kept the books when she started. she was still keeping the books at the day he was arrested. if she didn't know directly, she certainly was along for the ride. i liken them to bonnie and clyde, maybe bonnie didn't fire the guns, but she was part of the scheme. >> do you think the story will continue? >> there are more people. the layers of the onion are being peeled. the failure of the government. the fcc investigators were after madoff again and again on '92. they always missed it. why was that? their defense is they were inexperienced and incompetent. i know if that's satisfying. >> well, as head of the investigative unit, when's the first time you heard? >> the night he was arrested. i was sitting in new york next to my colleague. we had just finished reporting on rob th

mr. madoff in jail. host: we are talking about china's currency. this is a headline from "the financial times" this morning. it is talking about the chinese premier saying that beijing will not given to foreign demands for its currency to strengthen, taking an increasingly defiant tone amid mounting international pressure. trenton, missouri, is up next. we have kimberly on the line. i am doing well. go ahead, kimberly. caller: i have been raised a democrat all my life. my father has always been a very straight democrat who votes with his party. i feel like the democrats to change quite a bit in the last 10 years. they are not the democrats of my father's day. they do not seem to help a small businessman. they were in office for two years and did not do anything until obama got in there. who knows if what they're doing is the correct thing? host: we are talking about the federal reserve, the power of the federal reserve. we mentioned that ben bernanke's nomination has cleared the committee and the next step is the floor. this next headline is from "

mr. posey: it creates a tarp-like bailout authority and will promote systemic risk and undermine financial stability, another blamed failure of the regulators is the s.e.c. failure to pursue an investigation of madoff. they presented a report alleged ly fraud by bernie madoff. while they had the necessary tools, their failure to use these tools and launch a full investigation allowed him to perpetrate his ponzi scheme. as further evidence, it is wrong to empower bureaucrats not one s.e.c. employee has even had their wrist slapped. we have had concerns from small businesses that it will restrict their access to credit. not only is this troubling -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield to the the gentleman from ohio, who i understand would like to engage in a colloquy. >> i would like to address the provisions of section 1103 which specifies the criteria to be considered in whether a financial company might be subjected to stricter standards. nondeposit tower kpts do not impose the type of risk. nondeposit tower finance companies typically financing on a none revolving basis to dealers. as such, they are involved in a narrow scope of finan

mr. president, the senate -- the chairman of the senate budget committee, senator conrad, has gone on to say and describe this as a ponzi scheme of the first order, something that bernie madoff would be proud of. i've my colleagues on the other side get up and talk about how solvent this is and what great program this is. well, there are programs out there that are available for people to buy long-term care insurance. the problem with this one is, it takes all the money that comes in in the early years and spends it on other government programs, in this case health care reform, but who knows what other government programs radio going to be created that will -- what other government programs are going to be created that will use the revenue from this plan that supposedly a lot of people are going to sign up for. c.b.o. says that fewer than 4% of people will actually sign up for it. in fact, no senior today is going to benefit from it because you have to work for five years. if you are a senior who is retired, you are not going to see any benefit from this. this doesn't impact seniors, contrary to the assertions of some of my colleagues on the other sievmentd who it will impac