[laughter] the federal government has the gold. the federal reserve has the gold.let's listen to the federal reserve. thank you very much. [applause] .. electively emphasized, cents addressing martin feldstein's point about the capital expansion. that has greater potential. >> excuse me. you notice i have been holding up this time sign. i am going to say, address your question to one of the panelists and respondent please be conscious of the time. hillam do you choose? >> allen krueger. >> that was the right choice. [laughter] >> there are issues with the timing and you will see the nature of the recovery act change over time as more of the money goes into infrastructure spending. most of the initial money went into tax cuts in unemployment insurance benefits which jamie alluded to. but, i think you will see more the stimulus spending going into infrastructure and going into renewable energy. the vice president announced to very large grants for batteries. we eliminate some of what i consider a justified tax subsidy to the oil and gas industry, and i mean that is p

and, by the way, the information that a federal judge, one federal judge has already ordered that you disclose. as soon as you comply with that, then your nomination shall have a vote in the united states senate. well, mr. president, i wanted to explain in more detail my response to people today who had asked me what i was going to do on that nomination. that, i think, gives adequate explanation. i also wanted to just comment briefly that the president today said something quite extraordinary, and i want to compliment him for it. i know that he's walking into a thicket of trouble here, because a whole lot of big interests are going to gang up on this, these proposals. but let me tell you the two proposals the president offered that make a lot of sense. number one, he says that big financial institutions in this country that are too big to fail are too big. well, that's pretty simple. if you are too big to fail, you're just flat-out too big, and we ought to stop this concentration, because too big to fail means no-fault capitalism. you run yourself into trouble, the taxpayer picks up t

did you go to the federal reserves, did you go to the occ, did you go to other federal regulars and tell them about what was happening? can you tell me what kitty kelley would have? >> i have spoken to people and this would have been, you know, 2005, 2006, if memory serves me correctly, about the problems we were sitting. particularly with subprime loans. particularly with low doc, no doc loans. you know, those are very specialized products that until this crisis really got underway, were very rarely use. neighbors use for people in general who had good credit, but may not have an active string of income. so let's use the example of a medical student. recently graduated, secured a job, you know, wants to purchase a home but doesn't have any income at that point. but recently you could look and see that that person will. that was the intent of, say, a low doc, no doc loans. when you look at what happened in the lending industry, those types of loans became almost standardized. in large part because there was a lot of money to be made by putting people in those loans because it would cost

the funding by the federal reserve generates a -- >> the regional federal reserve bank science withoutonsulting n.y. for the board, to a lone $500 million on a certain amount of collateral and the moderate comes -- the money comes from their pockets? >> that they supervise the activities, and they do act -- >> it would be strange not to have some sort of supervision over the loans. >> certainly, your honor. >> when they do that, they consult with the federal reserve board. >> not with individual loans. the overall programs by the reserves banks we review and determine interest rates. they did a lot activities are under the federal reserve bakes under the supervision. >> let me go back to my question. they want $500 million. you're saying that the person behind that discount window wearing a shade says, here's your $500, million. >> to make individual loan determinations. the actual direction of the day- to-day business of lending will be carried out by the regional federal reserve bank. >> the business of lending, -- >> it must be authorized by -- with respect to the emergency faciliti

indeed, the federal reserve, our federal reserve, led the effort to reduce capital, reduce capital, madam president, in our largest financial institutions through the adoption of the capital accords. the fed even considered abandoning a leverage ratio which ensures that all banks maintain at least 4% of capital. think about it a minute. as a result, when the crisis struck, many of our financial institutions did not have the capital necessary to withstand the downturn. not surprisingly, the federal reserve then argued that a taxpayer bailout of the banks was the only way to prevent an economic collapse. but rather than do its job and ensure that our financial institutions were adequately capitalized, the fed waited until the crisis was in hand -- at hand and then rescued its banks with taxpayer funds. think about it a minute. ben bernanke's federal reserve also failed, madam president, to detect and to address the decline in lending standards and growing use of subprime loans. at the core of our financial crisis is the fact that far too many home loans were made that borrowers will be unab

[laughter] the federal government has the gold. the federal reserve has the gold.the federal reserve. thank you very much. [applause] .. electively emphasized, cents addressing martin feldstein's point about the capital expansion. that has greater potential. >> excuse me. you notice i have been holding up this time sign. i am going to say address your question to one of the panelists and respondent please be conscious of the time. hillam do you choose? >> allen krueger. >> that was the right choice. [laughter] >> there are issues with the timing and you will see the nature of the recovery act change over time as more of the money goes into infrastructure spending. most of the initial money went into tax cuts in unemployment insurance benefits which jamie alluded to. but, i think you will see more the stimulus spending going into infrastructure and going into renewable energy. the vice president announced to very large grants for batteries. we eliminate some of what i consider a justified tax subsidy to the oil and gas industry, and i mean that is part of the admini

and the federal government. preemption as i said in my comments just paralleled with the rise in the high cost w-whiskey loans. and in large part we think because there was not an ability for us to and limited resources at times to go after all of the participants if the feds were doing their job, you know, we could at our finger in a crack in the wall. but i couldn't prevent the wall from falling down eventually. >> commissioner crawford, would you comment? >> gas, commissioner born. i think that it varies from entity to entity. for example, in the case of the occ i believe that it's a regulatory turf battle. i believe that the occ wants to capture all of that space. with regard to the sec inside the belt way, i think there is a little bit of fear, sometimes fear can be a good ting. it can be a motivator. i do believe in regulatory competition to the extent that it results in better protection over investors. however, for the sec that is a significant problem so washington worries about that. on the other hand,

it is the federal reserve's. [laughter] fortunately, the administration has been careful to respect the independence of the federal reserve and the conduct of monetary policy. it recognizes that the federal reserve insulation from short-term political pressures is essential for fostering achievement and its legislative objectives of stable prices and maximum employment overtime and the second important clarification is the views you are about to here are my own and not necessarily those of any other member of the federal open market committee. let me start with monetary policy path. i have a past, present, future kind of presentation here. as it related to discussing where we are now and issues for the future i thought it would be helpful to summarize the actions we took over the past two years. in august, 2007 we recognized we were coping with a potentially serious disruption and financial markets that could feedback adversely on the economy and job creation. with liquidity and key funding markets drying up some

strong actions taken by the treasury department and federal reserve, federal deposit insurance corp. and other authorities here and abroad. for are part the federal reserve cut interest rates early and aggressively reducing our target for the federal funds rate to nearly zero. we played a central role in efforts to quell the financial turmoil. through joint efforts with other agencies and foreign authorities to avert a collapse of the global banking system last fall. by assuring financial access to short-term funding, private funding sources dried up. through leadership in the comprehensive assessment of large u.s. banks conducted this past spring and exercise public confidence in the banking system. we created targeted lending programs to help start the flow of credit in critical markets including partial paper market and securities backed by loans and small businesses. we estimate one of the targeted programs, the term asset backed security, has financed 3.3 million loans per household excluding credit card accounts. 487 loans to small businesses and 100,000 -- our purchase of long

why did the federal reserve led investment-banking go under the federal reserve radar?t should have been regulated by the banks -- philandering and everything else those investments bankers are engaged in. why did the federal reserve let us look around. doesn't the fed reserve have a schizophrenic character the stick? i say that because the fed reserve receives a statutory authority through congress. yet appointed by the executive branch. how something can be eponymous one that is a dichotomy of authority -- wouldn't it be better if you make it a fourth leg of government and make it a voting position? just as far as an elected official and be held a comet -- accountable? guest: i believe in accountability. but let us first get the facts. the chairman and the members of the board of governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate -- like secretary of treasury, secretary of defense, state. there is no difference there between that and any other major function of government. the members of the banks -- the federal reserve banks, the 12th but will reser

did you go to the federal reserve, did you go to the occ did you go to other federal regulators tell them about what was happening? can you tell me what happened? >> sure, i have spoken with people and this would have been, you know, 2005, 2006, if memory serves me correctly about the problems we were seeing particularly with subprime loans, particularly with low doc, no-doc loans. those are very specialized products, until this crises crisis got underway were very rarely used. they were were used for people in general who had group credit but may not have an active stream of income. so let's use example of a medical student, recently graduated. secured a job. you know wants to purchase a hem. but doesn't have any at that point. but, reasonably you can look and see that person will. that was the intent of, say a low-doc, no-doc loan. when you looked what happened in the lending industry, those types of loans become almost standardize, in large part because because there was a lot of money to be made by putting people in those loans because it would cost little more to put somebody in

and then the federal reserve bank in richmond. today, president obama's ambassador at large for global women's issues talks about supreme court justice, the changing roles of women in the law, and the rights of women around the world. .

lowering taxes at the federal level -- >> thank you, ms. medina? i just think it's important to point out we have lost jobs in the private sector. all those jobs the governor is talking about have come in the sector. that's not prosperity that's a greater burden for the businesses in this state and hard-working individuals hl this state to carry. we've added 14,000 jobs in the government sector and lost -- i'm sorry lost 14,000 in the private sector and added 166,000 in the public sector. in the government sector. >> we're going to move on to the next set of questions. >> hold on just a second. i'd like to respond to that. >> ok. let's tell you what. >> i'd like to respond to that because no governor has cut more than we have. we cut property taxes by 1/3. people are not moving to the state of texas and coming and this state is not growing by 1,000 people a day because they are overtaxed. the texas association business didn't stand up with me when we were doing our tax burden, senator, because they saw the opportunity to cut taxes, make them more f

it's federal fairness, not federal bailout. >> what about the stimulus. has it helped? i think it was helpful to california. i think that that was a big supporter of the stimulus package, i think they have given us money, with transportation or high technology, with all kinds of different things with our universities and so on, so we were very appreciative but it's one-time money. one should always know the difference between one-time money and ongoing money. one-time money, that's here today, gone tomorrow. ongoing money, when i talk about you know, increasing the level from 78 cents to 90 cents, that's ongoing thing. or when we talk about health care, that you have health care where we are owed billions of dollars in health care. that's ongoing so we want to make those adjustments with the federal government and work with them so that it's more fair. >> what happens if california doesn't get the money that you feel it deserves from the federal government? what then? >> well, first of all, i never really think so much about option b because it's a loser's attitude. i t

federal agencies across the federal bureaucracy, anat the cost of $30 billion.cording to data from the catalog of federal domestic assistance, 14 departments within the federal government and 49 independent agencies operate exchange and study abroad programs. a 2009 g.a.o. report found 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies. there are over 30 federal programs that provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary education and the cost to the taxpayers is over $30 billion every year. according to a may 2007 report of the academic competitiveness council, there are 105 federal programs supporting stem education with aggregate funding of $2.3 billion in 2006. you'll note that i'm not even talking about millions or hundreds of millions. we're talking about billions. but higher's one. there are at least 17 offender reentry programs across five different federal agencies, costing the taxpayers over $250 million annually. a 2005 g.a.o. study found there are a total of 23 federal housing programs target or have special featu

indeed, the federal reserve, our federal reserve led the effort to reduce capital, reduce capital, madam chairman, president, in our largest financial institutions through the adoption of the basel two capital accord. the fed even considered abandoning the leverage ratio which ensures that all banks maintain at least 4% of capital. think about it a minute. as a result when the crisis struck, many of our financial and touche and did not have the capital necessary to withstand the downturn. not surprisingly, the federal reserve been argued that a tax payer bailouts of the bank was the only way to prevent economic collapse. but rather than do his job in ensure that our financial institutions were adequately capitalized, the fed waited until the crisis was in hand and then rescued its banks with taxpayer funds. think about it a minute. ben bernanke also failed to detect and to address the decline in monday's standards and growing use of subprime loans. at the core of our financial crisis is the fact that far too many home loans were made that borrowers will be unable to repay, probably cover

every single federal court, every federal judge serves at the pleasure of the congress. we need to start putting checks on these dudes. and ladies. around this country who have actually broken their oath of office when they swear to uphold the constitution. in fact every one of us when we're sworn in swear to uphold the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. madam speaker, we have a lot of enemies that are domestic. enemies of the constitution, this house is overrun by many domestic enemies of the constitution. the senate is full of a bunch of them also, and the courts are full of a bunch of them likewise. to define and punish policies and felonies against the law of nations, that's another one of the few criminal defense laws of the federal government to. declare war and reprisal, make rules concerning captures on lands and water. to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation land and naval forces, that's for the army and navy and marine corps. i'm a marine, by the way. semper fi. to call fo

we have spoken to the federal government on several occasions. all cases, this is a federal government issue, not a state government issue. i think the national highway safety administration and others need to get on top of this. it will go crazy. it already seems like it is. what was the second part of the question? what are we doing about it? we do have a petition that we filed on truck-driver distracting electronic devices. the department is considering that. it goes a little lighter than phone use. we expect we will get an answer in 2010 on that issue. >> the virginia legislature just passed a text messaging ban that was utterly toothless because it is secondary. more generally, how would you characterize the will and the intent of state legislatures everywhere in passing secondary enforcement bans on various things that become popular issues? >> i'd characterize it as a mistake. it used to be that primary enforcement was a lot of the land in all highway safety laws. i think it's a convenient way to compromise and to get bills passed in state

well, first the recession directly affects the federal budget. the recession has caused revenues to fall to record lows. since 1970, the federal government has collected an average of 18% of the gross domestic product and tax revenues. that's since 1970. in 2009, however, revenues accounted for only 14.9% of g.d.p., a drop of more than 3%. meanwhile, the recession has required much greater amounts to be spent on unemployment benefits and on medicaid payments. second, congress has had to pass legislation to fight the recession. we need it to enact a large stimulus package to foster economic growth. the package that congress enacted provided stimulus and about $185 billion in fiscal year 2009, and it is estimated to provide stimulus of about about $400 billion in fiscal year 2010. this package has done some good. it's not perfect but it's done some good. it's helped. it helped prevent a deeper recession. it has significantly increased economic growth. regrettably, the package has not produced enough jobs yet. the finance committee and other committ

and the federal reserve manages the federal funds rate and the interest rate at which banks lend to each other. and to influence broader financial conditions and thus the course of the economy. as you could see, the target federal funds rate was lowered quickly in response to the 2001 recession, from 6.5% in late 2000, to 1.75% in december 2001 and to 1% in june 2003. after reaching the then record low of 1%, the target rate remained at that level for a year. in june 2004, the fnc raised the rate in june 2006 before pausing. more recently, as you know, and as the right slide indicates, rates have been cut sharp my once again. and the low policy rates during the 2002, and 2006 period were accompanied at various times by forward guideance on policy from the committee. for example beginning in august 200 , the f 1 c noted that policy was likely to remain accommodated for, quote, a considerable period. ed aggressive monetary policy response in 2002 and 2003 was motivate bid two principal factors, first although the recession technically ended the recovery remained weak and jobless into the l

bernanke the chairman of the federal reserve board for another term at the federal reserve board and the "washington post" had an editorial entitled scapegoat at the fed. i don't normally come to the floor of the senate to respond to the "washington post" editorials but i do want to respond to a portion of this editorial and then in a broadway describe why i think this is an important moment for the senate. scapegoat at the fed. is there many ways to interpret the election results of massachusetts last week -- the editorial begins. it said is but one thing massachusetts did not represent was a mandate to make a national scapegoat out of ben bernanke, the federal reserve board chairman. yet, two democratic senators seeking reelection in november, plus another planning to retire appear to have read it that way. they took the occasion of last week's political people to announce their opposition to another four year term for mr. bernanke, whose current one expires january 31st. the senator's attempt to burnish their populace credentials by making mr. bernanke the fall guy for all of the

i suggest that might be a model that is appropriate at the federal level as a federal backstop. now there are proposals to vote -- to build maps of high-voltage and the structure over the eastern interconnect. these are the so-called overlays. a $3.2 billion project in michigan has already been evaluated by the midwest independent system operator and determined not to meet a cost- benefit test for the state of michigan. a number of independent system operators and planning authorities in eastern interconnect recently studied a joint coordinated system plan referred to earlier involving a $56 billion high-voltage overlay. some refer to it as the equivalent of constructing the interstate highway system. the study concluded that michigan would receive virtually no benefit at fairly large cost. looking at consumer customers, costs were spread on a postage stamp basis, we would pay about $159 million a year in increased cost for a roughly $2 million at benefit. i would suggest michigan cannot afford that. another $10 billion project has been proposed to bring wind power from the dako

indeed, the federal reserve, our federal reserve, led the effort to reduce capital, reduce capital, madamleverage ratio which ensures that all banks maintain at least 4% of capital. think about it a minute. as a result, when the crisis struck, many of our financial institutions did not have the capital necessary to withstand the downturn. not surprisingly, the federal reserve then argued that a taxpayer bailout of the banks was the only way to prevent an economic collapse. but rather than do its job and ensure that our financial institutions were adequately capitalized, the fed waited until the crisis was in hand -- at hand and then rescued its banks with taxpayer funds. think about it a minute. ben bernanke's federal reserve also failed, madam president, to detect and to address the decline in lending standards and growing use of subprime loans. at the core of our financial crisis is the fact that far too many home loans were made that borrowers will be unable to repay, probably ever. the failure of bear stearns, leeman, washington mutual and a.i.g. largely stem from the sharp declines i

i work with the federal agencies.i think there is clear evidence of having an efficiency standard to generate benefits. we the fed are watching closely and evolving policy debate. i am not directly involve and cannot provide an extensive amount on that. >> go ahead, jim. >> i'm a free lancer with a focus on alternative fuel vehicles. i'm interested in hearing more about the smart grid for alternative fuel vehicles, especially electric and plug ins. there is a lot of hype from the auto industry and i haven't heard a lot of discussion about where the energy for the smart grid is going to come from and what a realistic time table would be. thanks. >> when you look at the smart grid, there is a lot of different definitions. a broad one is really creatingys of real time utilization versus what's happening at the production level. building smart grid concepts into a transportation sector is really the next evolution of what we're trying to do at the power distribution and transmission levels first. we don't have an infrastr

states from federal treasury and from the federal budget to pay for state exchange. on the other hand, actually i think having the states that run exchanges, surcharge the transaction which is why they are in business and have to manage the costs of their services in a competitive market as a perfectly reasonable way, and focuses the objectives of the local or regional or state exchange on its fundamental objective. which is to get people insured and the most affordable way. so i actually would take some issue with you in describing it as an unfunded mandate. >> i was talking about the afford the cost, not the cost of running the exchange. but yes. >> let me just follow-up to a related question here, that knows health insurance is regulated state level today. if the exchange is created at a federal level, who would staff the federal exchange and how much wood creating that new structure and running it cost? does anybody have a notion about that? i don't never seen anything in the cost estimates. >> the federal exchange would be run by the commission which is a new ad

but as the record shows a large number of people at the federal reserve bank of new york and the federal reserve board in washington played a very active role in thinking through these difficult decisions. >> i am not sure that i got the answer there. >> i personally played no role in making those decisions. u.s. get any employees of the new york fed did, of course they did. >> when you were the president of the federal reserve bank of new york when did you recuse yourself from matters involving specific companies and why did you recuse yourself? >> on november 24th, the president announced his intention to nominate me at secretary to the treasury. that forced me to make a set of decisions about what was appropriate for me to do given the unique circumstances of that time. and after consulting with the chairman of the federal reserve, with the chairman of my board, with my general counsel, and with a range of other officials, collectively we decided that it was in the best interests of the fed and the incoming administration for me to remove myself from day-to-day involvement in the fed'

and the hyde amendment is a piece of federal legislation that bars federal funding of abortion.i tried to do in the healthy americans act because we had a provision on that is to preserve that rough consensus. we wrote our bill so there could be no federal funding of abortion. it stipulate that is veryçó clearly. and -- and you would see roe versus wade protected with respect to private choice. and now, along comes the house and the senate, and let's talk about those two approaches. because -- this will be a big part of the final debate. and the house legislation authored by congressman, stupak. he's a good man. i happen to disagree with him on this issue, essentially would require that a woman in the private sector purchase an insurance policy with a special rider on it. and there's evidence from the insurance industry and elsewhere that -- that would be very hard to do. and it also keeps the band on -- ban on federal funding. the senate decided to go a different route. the senate protected the -- the ban on federal funding, with respect to hyde, but in effect said that a woman

the federal election commission. he remarked that no problem confronting our nation is greater than that of our steadily eroding confidence in our political system. he was so right. he understood that democracy is depended on inclusion and on citizens who participate in the process and have confidence their view also be heard and fairly considered. today i urge my colleagues to pause for a moment to remember a gentleman from maryland who cared deeply for our nation and understood that our democracy depends on strong leaders who have courage, intelligence, and integrity. mack mathias was such a leader. madam president, i would ask that my comments on the economy and small businesses appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i have introduced today the boosting enterprise -- entrepreneurship and jobs act that i believe is desperately needed. i think it's very clear that our economy, which is coming out of the worst recession since the great depression, has t

from the federal treasure -- from the federal budget to pay for state exchange. on the other hand, i actually think having the state that run exchanges surcharge the transaction, which is why they are in business and actually have to manage the cost of their services and competitive market is a perfectly reasonable way. and focuses the objectives of the local, or researchal, or state exchange on its fundamental objective. which is to get people insured in the most affordable way. so i actually would take some issue with you at describing that as an unfunded mandate. >> i was talking about the enforcement cost, not the cost of running the exchange. but yes. >> let me just follow up. there's a related question here that notes health insurance is regulated at the state level today. if the exchange is created the the federal level, who would staff the federal exchange? and how much would creating the new structure and running it cost? does anybody have any notion about that? i don't remember seeing anything in the cost estimates. >> the federal exchange would be run

the funding by the federal reserve generates a -- >> the regional federal reserve bank science withoutconsulting n.y. for the board, to a lone $500 million on a certain amount of collateral and the moderate comes -- the money comes from their pockets? >> that they supervise the activities, and they do act -- >> it would be strange not to have some sort of supervision over the loans. >> certainly, your honor. >> when they do that, they consult with the federal reserve board. >> not with individual loans. the overall programs by the reserves banks we review and determine interest rates. they did a lot activities are under the federal reserve bakes under the supervision. >> let me go back to my question. they want $500 million. you're saying that the person behind that discount window wearing a shade says, here's your $500, million. >> to make individual loan determinations. the actual direction of the day- to-day business of lending will be carried out by the regional federal reserve bank. >> the business of lending, -- >> it must be authorized by -- with respect to the emergency facilit

california taxpayers send more money to the federal government tan any other state. get back just 78 cents on the dollar. 20% less than it got back under the clinton administration. >> we're giving to washington and they're sending out to other states. >> reporter: 42 states are projecting a deficit in the coming fiscal year. like california, new york, new jersey, florida, and illinois all expect to be billions in the red, making congress wary of setting a precedent. but economists say letting california drown in red ink could hit the national economy hard, because the golden state is home to 12% of the u.s. population and produces 13% of the nation's gross domestic product. >> it's probably an analogy one could make that we are too big to fail. it doesn't mean that we may not have some difficulties, that we need to address ourselves, but the failure of california would be a failure for the country. >> reporter: the budget governor schwarzenegger unveiled friday slashes programs across the board. and raised an unused state fund for half a billion dollars to give tax

not the federal government. guest: well, again, i think my answer to that would be if that works for those kids, go for it. i have no objection to that. i do think in many parts of the country, it's tenable to set up the sort of system you ever talking about. democrat doesn't said i think what we're seeing no is through if the ability to take a neighborhood like you're talking about where you have some large disfunctional schools and put new high omplee as a part of a larger turn turn strategy. an one of the most remarkable things is going on in houston where the high-performing kip schools are, like, yes, academy. around others are ramping up to serve a much larger paming in houston. >> those cards are going to have a terrific new option figure and dad tag. let me get back to you in a few years. so let me just stop on that. host: republican line, cumberenland, maryland. caller: a guest today, what restrictions do they have on religion in the chartered school? >> well, the same in other public schools. charter s

so what have federal outlays been? in 2009, 50% of everything the federal government pays out goes to entitlements. now, what are entitlements? medicare, social security, veterans benefits, things that cannot be controlled that if you're entitled to them, you get them. and you look at interest on the debt is what -- is 5%. if you look at discretionary defense, it's 18%. and if you look at everything else the federal government does that everybody talks about: education, agriculture, justice, education, the 22 departments in homeland security, it is just 16% of what is spent. so if you add together the 50% and the 5% of interest, you see 55% of everything the federal government spends this year cannot -- cannot be controlled. you have to spend it. and so all the rest that's discretionary is rather small in comparison. if you project that out ten years -- and i must tell you, new numbers are coming out tomorrow, so this is the latest number that i have -- entitlements go up to 56% and interest on the debt to 14%. so that

million in federal stimulus funds on highway improvements. we will also be working with our other rural states to secure the passage of the new surface transportation act by congress that will be fair to rural america and also continue to manage increased construction costs and increased maintenance cost and decreasing revenues. agriculture has been the steady constant in our economy for decades. but in recent years it has become even more important because we are adding value to the commodities to create more and come right here within the borders. government primarily provide certain services to people. but our farmers, ranchers, processors are growing, creating and producing food and fuel that are the basic necessities of life and for many millions of other people. many people don't realize the extended drought period that we just experienced recently was statistically worse than the dirty thirties but we didn't experience the devastation because the farmers and ranchers over the last 80 years have implemented many conservation actions and

the federal railroad administration and amtrak are among the witnesses plus federal regulators and highed rail advocates. held by a senate transportation subcommittee, this is just under an hour and 50 minutes. [inaudible conversation] >> often at events which are meant to be full, they just invite members of the audience to come up and make it look like there's a big crowd up here. [laughter] sfwlsh sfwl >> i don't want your egos to be upset. there's a lot going on today. and part of it, obviously, is what happened with the metro rail system. it's actually depressing, senator warner, sad that there is no current way for the ntsb or the department of transportation or anybody else that can make recommendations but they have no enforcement authority. i did not know that. until this happened. and people can have a variety of philosophies about the federal government. but it seems to me that where you have a heavy train being hit by -- and something went wrong and yes, we'll speculate and it will all come out in the end and in the meantime the only thing that really counts is the -- you kn

and the hyde amendment is a piece of federal legislation that bars federal funding of abortion.n the healthy americans act because we had a provision on that is to preserve that rough consensus. we wrote our bill so there could be no federal funding of abortion. it stipulate that is veryçó clearly. and -- and you would see roe versus wade protected with respect to private choice. and now, along comes the house and the senate, and let's talk about those two approaches. because -- this will be a big part of the final debate. and the house legislation authored by congressman, stupak. he's a good man. i happen to disagree with him on this issue, essentially would require that a woman in the private sector purchase an insurance policy with a special rider on it. and there's evidence from the insurance industry and elsewhere that -- that would be very hard to do. and it also keeps the band on -- ban on federal funding. the senate decided to go a different route. the senate protected the -- the ban on federal funding, with respect to hyde, but in effect said that a woman with respect t

federal election commission. that decision threatens to allow corporations to drown out the individual voices of hard-working americans in our elections by overturning years of work in congress, years of work by both republicans and democrats alike in campaign finance laws, by reversing a century of its own supreme court precedent, the conservative activist bloc on the supreme court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that's going to distort future elections. the citizens united decision turns the idea of government of and by and for the people on its head. it creates new rights for wall street at the expense of main street. congress, on behalf of the american people, struggled for years to enact campaign finance reform. virtually every american wanted campaign finance reform, and we finally did that in a deposit way in the 2002 mccain-feingold act. this milestone campaign finance reform strengthened the laws protecting the interests of all americans by ensuring a fair electoral process. in the 2003 case

that is taking the federal government into a completely new area.or orrin hatch and two other gentleman wrote a piece for "the wall street journal" that goes into that. i agree with them. one of them was at a meeting i attended earlier and he is very well informed. there is a lot of law that agrees with what they had in that. >> if the compromise bill that comes out does not contain this provision, you would be ok with that? >> which provision? >> the nebraska provision. >> that would end the effort that is signified by this letter. i am not saying that would end all levers that maybe signified by additional letters or by letters of all but by lawsuits either by states or by individuals. >> what would you say to people who would say that mcmaster is bringing this up as a political issue and is trying to score political points, he is running for governor. you sent that senator lindsey graham is the one who initiated the call to you. both him and senator demint sent to the letter. -- sent you the letter . >> i don't know i and complicity in there's or

well, the federal government and each one of those.and since then, the treasury continued to purchase preferred shares in the gses, the means to provide them with enough capital to cover their losses. initially, congress put up $200 billion, as one -- 100 billion for each entity and last year the treasury raised the potential commitment to 400 billion and of course, on christmas eve lifted the cap altogether and now it is basically, unlimited. in the latest report, fannie mae said we expect for the foreseeable future the earnings of the company, if any will not be efficient to pay the dividends on the senior preferred stock. as a result, future dividend payments actually will be effectively refunded from the equity drawn from the treasury. which means -- seems to me is the treasury pours money in and they take the treasuries and send their own money back to us again as dividends. director, your counterparts, however at the office of management and budget, omb and treasury, somehow disagree with you. and, your conclusions about fannie a

remember all of this is governed by the federal procurement regulations and rules.gain, it is going to take some time but just in the short time that we have been working with they have the kids, working with the contractors we have been able to make some pretty significant changes and i think we are going to be able to continue to do that, and i would encourage all of you to have an interest in this coming to come on down and give us your thoughts. again, it is all about balance and we won't always be able to do every single thing that you want us to do but i think we are a lot better off for the conversation. so, listen, on that note, let me close and just say that we are quite serious about what we are trying to do at i.c.e.. we are quite proud of the work that i.c.e. does as an agency. we are going to spend a lot of time making sure that i.c.e. is better understood and celebrated for what it does. we are going to spend a lot of time making sure that i.c.e. is a little more transparent and open to all the people who have an interest in what we do. we are going to

they also failed to ensure a timely transition of spectrum by federal agencies. and business planning by commercial bidders. it's this very problem that the bill that i'm prime sponsor seeks to address. fundamentally our bill will do these two things. it increases to bidders before it occurs and it will expedite the flow of auction besiegers to the relocated agency to keep the relocation process on track. i'm convinced that this more complete information about the effective federal agency systems him of the relocation cost estimates and schedules will reduce the risk for potential bidders, will ensure timely relocation payment and moving by federal agencies and will ensure that the next generation of consumer demand and services are delivered. it will not cure the common cold that otherwise it sounds pretty good. i want to thank macculloch mr. upton and chairman boucher for advancing this and i look forward to fulfilling the thomas of our billing constituents. >> thank you very much, mr. inslee. mr. kerry is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you for holding th

the federal government reported a slowing in the growth of health care spending in 2008. but it levels it's still outpacing the overall any. more on the report from the centers of medicare and medicaid services. susan host this isçó 55-minute event. >> i'm susan denser, happy new year and welcome to our briefing on health care numbers. that is ritual as the medicare and medicaid services as well as health affairs to bring out these spending numbers every year, and we're delighted to be able to do that once more. this year we have historic numbers to help act twares and others unveil. and as you will hear and perhaps already read we had an historic slowdown in the rate of health care spending as well as rate of growth in 50 years.ç] of course the other side of the story is health care spending still grew faster than the overall economy so we're not out of our long-term projectry with the health differing to pay for the health 06 our folks.Ñi and i will turn it over to our folks from cms to present the data. you'll be hearing from micah hartman. with the office of the act t

i have heard some colleagues say that is unwanted federal injured victim -- unwanted federal interventioni do not agree with that. if they give you a carrot, only some pastelok to it in my opinion, we cannot quickly respond to the of pleas of the experts -- if we do not quickly respond, people will suffer. i know some people here have suffered these tragedies. to go to the funeral of a teenager is probably about the saddest thing you can do. these tragedies do not have to take place. the laws are right there. i encourage all my colleagues to please pass these laws. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, senator. susan will fvavala is next. unfortunately what brings her here today is the story of the loss of her daughter, kim, in a teen-related crash. >> thank you for inviting me to be here today to share my family's story with you. june 12, 1995 was the first day of vacation. the long summer was a head. my daughter was learning to drive. her 16th birthday was two weeks away. it was an exciting time with exams finally over, softball in midseason, and independence on the horizon. tha

any federal program you like and which one would you know if i? >> well, shelley, before answer that question actors they thank you for all of texas to make sure we have a voice on the age tonight. with an average citizen can fit with a senator and a governor, it shows that it's still as a government of the people and by the people. you know, both have commented that we have to be proud of our military and we certainly all would salute the men and women who once served us in that regard. but i am not sure that we could apply the federal government for taking care of our u.s. military and saying that that is a job they've done well. we've let the veterans down time and again in providing equipment and needs on the battlefield and then we don't take care of them when they come home. so i am hard pressed to say that there's anything that that washington is doing well. >> the question really is is there any federal program you like. you have done interviews in which you have said only federal responsibility that you're supporting is their ability to m

federal spending. stimulus. i sort of ask myself in the last five years where was everyone's concern about the spending? five years ago our debt was about $5 trillion. when president bush left office it was almost -- it was $10 trillion. it's been added a trillion since then. we doubled it in five years. i didn't hear a lot. again, not blaming president bush. we are fighting two wars and not asking anyone to pay for it, ok. we have done the largest tax cut ever was under president bush. i didn't do it. that was $2 trillion. that all mounts up. we have to pay for it. the president's budget says he'll cut deficit spending in half within four years. i believe we can do it. remember 1992 when i first ran for office, ross perfect roethlisberger -- ross perot, it's commit, stupid. remember that commercial? what did we do in 1993? we had big deficits. unemployment was bad. things were rough. we passed a deficit reduction package, very partisan vote. no democrats -- excuse me, no republicans voted for it. al gore broke

fred, your thoughts on federal mortgage relief? caller: yes, i think they should stop all of this spending. let me put it in this scenario. with congress, they passed a $400 million omnibus and $870 billion stimulus package. hundreds of billions of dollars, even the health care. no one would pay this stuff except a 1-year-old child. if you took that money, a kidnapper would pay it. host: lina, democratic line. caller: they said that everyone over 18 with 0 $50,000. people that were in trouble with their mortgage, they could have skated down. they could have paid down their house, purchased a car. de spending the money. the system has a way where the government control all of us, i believe. host: thank you all the calls. we are turning to look at the week ahead in politics on capitol hill. we will be speaking to liz sidoti and jennifer haberkorn, they will be joining us for the next 45 minutes or so. your calls with of course be welcome. we will be right back. ♪ fifth >> this week, the former head of the national association of broa

we're a federal city.s we have a disproportionate number of federal buildings and i was able to get money for rehabilitation, upgrading federal buildings here, very substantial remaking of federal buildings here. 15 buildings. add it all up that's $3.5 billion in stimulus funding for the district of columbia that had to be the overriding goal at a time when our employment rate, as i see it is approaching 12%. >> let's talk about jobs and specifically you mentioned the new headquarters for the homeland security department. how many jobs are we talking about there and construction leading up to it too? >> very important point, jim. because this project will feed the d.c. economy for almost ten yes. and over that period of building three buildings, it's a compound not a mere federal building and reusing 60 structures, historic structures that we don't want to tear down. over that period of time there will be many different kinds of jobs and that means that before that construction is all ne, 38,000 jobs in wa

those negotiations never took place between the federal government and the stakeholders. those negotiations took place among the stakeholders themselves. and they all agreed that the federal government should send them lots and lots of money. the same commissioner of the bureau of reclamation sent a letter in november, november 10 of 2009, to the chairwoman of the subcommittee on water and power and warned about these things again. they said, other than the $4.95 million provided for rehabilitation of irrigation systems on the reservation, the administration does not believe the money authorized for the development fund is consideration for this settlement. i would also point out that under the terms of this measure, that again are questioned by the administration, the federal government is responsible for handing over that money and then the tribe in the provisions of the bill has the authority to withdraw those funds for purposes unrelated to water development. that's why those of us in the minority, although we are very sympathetic to the history that has brought us to

this o about the fine line the federal reserve is wking. fed annound today it plans to keep interest rates arecord low vels of near zero for an extended period of tim our economics correspondt, paul solman, examinethat strategy as pa of his continuing reporting on king sense of financial ns. >> ♪ as we go through this recession ♪ >> repter: investment advisor jon shaynender his nom de country, merle hazard,n the deral reserve's monetary mistrations to revive the economy. >> ♪ it's a mini-great depression ♪ our markets went bersk the fed is printing trlions now, but will their effort work? ♪ >> rorter: will fed policy, that is, made every six eks in this room, pull us out of e doturn so prices, wages and consumers don't art drooping ain? the extreme ca it's looking to avoi japan these past 20 years and its so-called grea flation. >> we're terriblpoor. a w class. woing poor. >>eporter: or might the fed, by printg too much money in order to keep interest rat low anthe economy ticking, ultimately be driving us in e very opposite direction:oward