- >> cooperative federalism does not mean that there are no federal mandates and no federal restrictions involved in a program that uses 90% here, 100% federal money. it means there is flexibility built into the program subject to certain rules that the federal government has about how it wishes its money to be used. it's like giving a gift certificate. if i give you a gift certificate for one store, you can't use it for other stores, but, still, you can use it for all kinds of different things. >> i absolutely agree that if it's cooperative federalism and the states have choices, then that is perfectly okay. but when -- that's why voluntariness in coercion is so important. because if you force a state to participate in a federal program, then -- i mean, as long as it's voluntary, then a state official shouldn't complain if a citizen complains to the state about the way the state's administering a federal program that it volunteered to participate in. but at the point it becomes coercive, then it's not fair to tell the citizen to complain to the state official, they had no choice. but wh

beyond the federal minimum. does this act not require states to keep at the present legal their existing medicaid example? so some states may have been more generous than others in medicaid. so they can't go back. >> there is something called the maintenance of effort provision which lasts until 2014, until such time as the medicaid expansion takes place. that applies to the population, says with respect to the ybody out, it does not apply be the states still have flexibility. they can still reduce optional benefits that they're now providing if they want to control costs. they can also work on provider rates with respect to demonstration projects where states had expangded -- they don't have to keep them in, so that's a provision that dews significantly left and it's effect beyond that is just temporary, but i do think the effect of the first of the three arguments, the sheer size argument. it's very difficult to see how that is going to work, because if the question is about what you stand to lose, rather than

government -- once you're taking federal government money, the federal government money can take it back, and that doesn't affect the voluntariness of you problem. we're assuming the federal government cannot do this, under the constitution it cannot do this, but if it gets the state to agree to it, well, then it can, and the concern is if you can say if you don't agree to this you lose all your money, whether that's really saying the limitation in the is largely meaningless. >> well, but i don't think that this is a case that presents that question. >> no, no, i know. i know -- i don't know if i'll grant it to you or not, but let's assume it's not this case. do you recognize any limitation on that concern? >> i think the court has said in stewart machine and dole that this is something that needs to be considered in an appropriate case and we acknowledge that, but i do think it's so dependent on the circumstances that it's very hard to say in the abstract with respect to a particular program that there is -- >> you can't imagine a case in which it is both germane and yet coercive i

federal government's authority to run prisons is then related to the federal government's power to enact criminal laws. but those of you know the constitution know that's not in there. so then we get back to, okay, what allows congress to impose criminal laws? that's congress's -- that's the federal government's ability to do things like establish post offices and patent laws. so things that are violations of those powers can be made criminal. so you have a much more attenuated step. so i think that's an important thing to remember when we talk about how broad or narrow comstock is. that chain of necessary and proper and enumerated power is pretty attenuated in comstock. i think -- i know randy doesn't like to say this is an easy case, but it's certainly easier than comstock i think when it comes to necessary and proper. >> first of all, there's bad news i've got for you and that's after the raich case, the medical marijuana case by a 6-3 vote, congress has really sweeping powers to regulate any activity that is deemed to be economic, including the growing of a plant in your backyard for

hacked off about, it they can bring a federal complaint to a federal official working in a federal agency. what make this is so pernicious is that the federal government know that is the citizenry is not going to take lightly the idea that their huge new federal bureaucracies popping up across the country, and so they get the benefit of administering this program through state officials but then it makes it very confusing for the citizen who doesn't like this. do they complain to the state official because it's being administered by state official in a state building -- >> mr. clemente, that is very confusing because the idea behind cooperative federal/state programs was exactly a federalism idea. it was to give the states the ability to administer those programs. it was to give the states a great deal of flexibility in running those programs and that's exactly what medicaid is. >> well, that's exactly what medicaid was. the question is what will it be going forward? and i absolutely take your point, justice kagan, cooperative federalism is a beautiful thing. mandatory federalism has very

it diversifies the federal committee, it ensures federal neutrality for future fed purchases and institutes congressional oversight from the financial protection bureau. critics also charge focusing on a sound dollar implies the federal reserve will somehow ignore the employment needs of america. it is just the opposite. americans can only maximize our real economic output with long-term price stability m. thus protecting the purchasing power of the dollar provides these strong foundations for lasting economic growth in job creation. a mandate gives the federal reserve the right goal. it does not alone ensure the federal reserve achieves price stability. that requires us to move away from discretionary regime back toward a rules-based regime. in january 2012 the fomc found a price index. chairman bernanke and the other members of the fomc of this step toward a rules-based inflation targeting regime. however, this is merely a policy that can easily be reversed. therefore, the sound dollar act mandates that the open markets committee which targets inflation, continues inflation targeting. as

federal complaint to a federal agency. the federal government knows that the citizenry is not going to take lightly that there are huge federal bureaucracies-o'-of administering this -- it makes it very -- do they complain to the state official? >> that is very confusing because the idea behind cooperative federal state programs was exactly a federalism idea. it was to give the states the ability to administer those programs, it was to give the states a great deal of flexibility in running those programs and that's exactly what medicaid is. >> that's exact lip what medicaid was. i absolutely take your case. cooperative federalism is a beautiful thing. mandatory federalism has very little to oppose it. >> it does not mean there are no federal restrictions involved in a program that uses 90% here, 100% federal money. it means there's flexibility built into the program subject to certain rules that the federal government has about how it wishes its money to be used. it's like giving a gift certificate. if i give you a gift ce

federal government can't -- we all know from the coercion cases that the federal government couldn't force the states to do certain things. i also shouldn't be allowed to say you have to give us your money. you have to give us federal income taxes and us to spend as we'll give some of that back to you on the condition that you comply with our demands. and our demand exceed our constitutionally authorized powers. how do i think the court's going to rule? it's hard to tell this is as i said basically a blank slate. we have butler from 1936 and we have the dole case. that's about it. no court has ever enforced the spending clause as a shield against federal power. the justices will be skeptical of wading into this area. dole makes it very clear that some things have to go too far. we're talking about this system that basically co-ops the states into branching of the federal government with regard to medical care then you are talking about something that goes too far. thank you. >> thank you, tim for your succinct argument. we're going to hear from the other side. he served as associate

who live on federal lands. mostly these youngsters are children of servicemen and women who live on military bases and children from indian country ornativive american reservation. this funding supports special education for 7 million children. special education funding helps ensure that the nearly 7 billion children with disabilities have access to high quality public education. the federal contribution currently only covers about 16% of the average cost of special ed. it comes out to be about 1,760 per student, but it paks a big difference. this budget does not cut the educational budget function by much, but it has $17 billion of unspecified discretionary cuts in 2013 that could deeply affect education services. so this amendment will protect this funding from being cut by the republican resolution. and there are many ways to get our fiscal house in order without stunting the next generation of americans. maintaining this for competitiveness. that's why i ask you to support today's youngsters and education f

concerns in the sense of the federal government using federal funding in one area to try to get states to act in an area where the federal government may not have article i authority. >> yes. >> but, as your honor suggested earlier, this is a situation in which, while it is certainly true that the federal government couldn't require the states, as the chief justice indicated, to carry out this program, the federal government could, as your honor suggested, expand medicare and do it itself. >> but do you agree that there still is inherent and implicit in the idea of federalism, necessary for the idea of federalism, that there be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows that it's the federal or the state government who should be held responsible for their program? >> certainly, but i think the problem here is - >> and does coercion relate to that, or is that a separate - >> yes, but i think - >> -- is that a separate doctrine? >> well, i think it relates to it in the opposite way that my friends on the other side would like it to, in that i think their argument is that it woul

federal reserve took in lender of last resort programs were quite minimal. as i described lending was clateral in term. most cases. in december of 2010,e all the d involved in the fed made during the crisis. of the 20 2 1,000 loan defaulted. every single one was paid back. even though the objective of the program were stabilizing the system was not profit making, the taxpayers did come out ahead in those loans. so that was the lender of last resort activity. that was the tool, the fire hos financial crisis. but of course as i described last time, theven though the crisis was contained, the impact on the u.s. and global was severe. and new -- new actions were needed to help the economy recover. remembering that the two basic tools of banks are lender of last resort policy and monetary policy, we turn to the second tool, monetary policy which was the primary tool used to try to bring the economy back after the trauma of the financial crisis. now, you're all familiar with conventional conventional monetary policies nvolve management of the rate called the feder

these slides will be posted on the federal reserve's website, federal reserve.gov.s we go through. and so if you need extra copies or -- by all means, do that. and as president knapp said, i'm going to be talking for a while from the presentation, but at the end, i hope we can have some questions and answers. so let me get started. what i want to talk about in these four lectures is the federal reserve and the financial crisis. now my thinking about this is very much conditioned by my experience as an economic historian. i think when you talk about the issues that just occurred over the last few years, it makes the most sense to think about it in the broader context of sfrl banking as it's taken place over the centuries. so even though we're going to be focusing a good bit of the lectures, particularly next week, on the financial crisis and how the fed responded, i think we need to go back and look at the broader context. so as we talk about the fed, we'll be talking about the origin and mission of central banks in general. and we are looking at previous financial c

federal match. it's all recorded as part of the general fund. but i'm assuming the match would have been 50 mernt in any case. even with the waiver. so i'm reducing what is reported as massachusetts' expenditure by 50%. despite that you see a ramp up in spending. now one question is there is a ramp up. you can see that. is it because of the recession? for example in the 2001 episode, the recession caused the jump up in enrollment and spending. so is the latest ramp up a result of the same kind of thing? is it because of the recession or is it because of romneycare? you can get some idea if you look at all the surrounding states vermont, connecticut, new hampshire and maine. which are in the same region. but from vermont, new hampshire and maine, both the lines eventually decline and they show no secular increase or consistent increase over the 2000 decade as is the case with massachusetts. there is an increase in connecticut, but i went down to the weeds and saw there in their budget reports the inc

as low borrowing costs are masking the pain of historically high federal budget deficits, the federal reserve's monetary experimentation continues to permit the white house and congress to shirk their responsibility for creating a competitive business climate. the monetary experimentation the last decade must and. -- end. the federal reserve should turn to a rules-based system of inflation targeting to achieve the mandate. to provide the foundation for a long-term economic growth in america, today, i am unveiling the sound dollar act. it reforms the federal reserve in several important ways. specifically, it replaces the dual mandate with the single mandate for long-term price stability. it increases the fed's accountability and openness. it diverts supplies the open market committee. it ensures neutrality for future purchases. it institutes congressional oversight of the consumer financial protection bureau. critics of a single mandate often focus on the sound dollar, and implied that it ignores the needs of americans. it is the opposite. americans can only maximize our real economic

federal -- on the federal side. so i think it's important to put that into context. i am hoping that we will get a little clarity about the disclosure requirements that the department is working on for hydraulic fracking. the question that i would have is whether it is just that. whether it's a disclosure requirement, as many of the states have advanced, or actually a new set of regulations. i think all of us are looking very critically at this. we want to make sure that this boom that we are seeing across the country when it relates to our opportunities for hydraulic fracking combined with horizontal drilling, we recognize that it is vastly increased our natural gas supply, and it's reviving communities, bringing about jobs. but those could all be lost if the federal government decides to place owner redundant on the technology. again, i appreciate your efforts in a very difficult area. the folks become home in alaska are talking about nothing but energy right now. and it's not just the price at the pump, but it's

that we support the russian federation and get their low point. action. in a moment we are far away from. relocate witnesses from the russian federation country of the european union why serious are. we being law enforcement agency just who made. it they will open and standardize how many eyes screw the actual procedures around the world so this is so big news that witnesses from western europe can be relocated to russia to protection these reports are not true i mean if if. there is a p literally dreaming. country in the group and the russian federation bendis can become everything that reply think you think it may make sense because you see what the reason i'm asking it's very difficult to hide an afro american in the eskimo village so it is that it will be pretty hard to tell i have a french woman or an englishman in siberia well. so to relocate. from country to another country is always based on principles and standardized you see just. one of the principle is that. none of the witnesses will be placed in another country without having reached an agre

federal reserve which has cooperated with them. so yes, i think we should reduce the deficit, but to talk about doing that by cutting social security and medicare to the exclusion -- in fact, many of my colleagues want to spend more on the military as a great gift to the world, they should set interest rates for regard with no impact on employment, and i think the country would benefit from that kind of debate. >> i thank the gentleman. let me simply say that i think we could address both of them. i don't think they're mutually exclusive. as you know, i have a son that served in the marines, and -- >> chairman, i was simply responding to what you said, and you are representative of a large group that talks about entitlement, and the military only comes up as an afterthought. >> well, i think it needs to be a grand bargain. we've discussed that and i think we agree on that. everything ought to be on the table, but without entitlement reforms, we won't get there. >> are we going to continue this debate after our five minutes? >> mr.

the federal -- all the focus has been on federal employees, the direct employees of federal agencies. but the government employs indirectly an even larger number of contract employees than it does federal employees and they work side by side with federal employees often doing work that is arguably inherently governmental that should be performed by federal employees but we'll put that to the side for a minute. they have not been subject to any kind of pay freeze and in fact we've been working on legislation with representative tonko of new york and senators boxer and grassley. they've both introduced legislation that would cap contractor salaries. right now the most highly compensated contractor employees can get compensated by taxpayers for up to about $700,000 a year. and an unlimited number of employees of any given contractor can be paid -- can be compensated by taxpayers for even more than that. the senate legislation, boxer and grassly, would limit it to the salary of the president of the united states, 400,000. representative tonko's bill says capnet secretary salary 200,000 is

issue is the individual mandate, the requirement in the federal had bill thati-- federal health cae every individual have health insurance. is congress power to resonate -- does congress' power to regulate interstate commerce allow them to compel you to buy health insurance? there has never been the case before like this in the over 200 years since the constitution was passed. the federal government has never compelled people to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce. that is the centerpiece of the case. there is another constitutional issue, the tax argument. it rose after the case began. we fire of our case on march 3, 2010, it was all about the commerce -- when we filed our case on march 3, 27, it was all about the commerce clause. -- march 3, 2010, it was all about the commerce clause. we just kept making our case. we here is all the states that address the limited government side of this. they say it is still much power -- it is too much power there. the other side began to worry that they could lose. they started out saying this was a slam-dunk, we will never los

government and the states where the federal government conditions 100% of the federal fund on states meeting requirements that are determined in washington. now laws within the cross hairs of that forecast would include not just the expansion of medicaid, but all of medicaid. it would include all federal aid to education programs and all requirements that are tied to those programs. that would mean for example, title six of the civil rights act which requires recipients of federal fund to abide by a whole set of familiar anti-discrimination guarantees. it would include title nine which of course is the reason why we have women's collegiate sports intramural and intercollegiate. it would include a whole raft of requirements for assuring equal access to people with disabilities, which are of immense significance. it would affect foster care programs. it would affect the solomon amendment which some of you may know requires that all universities receiving federal funds grant equal access to military recruiters. which was itself the subject of a supreme court case not too long ago. it wo

federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers are a team. they work very well together. air marshals are a vital part of that. matter of fact, the federal air marshal program just to get in that program, you have to be the best shot of any federal law enforcement. but there's -- they're only present on a limited number of flights. the ffdos expand that deterrence even more and the ability to respond to the unexpected threat which may be the achilles heel of a risk based, intelligence based type of program. according to the estimates by the air line pilots association, ffdos only cost $15 per flight segment. let me say that again. to protect an aircraft, to protect possibly the potential of thousands of people, the federal flight deck officer costs $15 per flight segment. though the actual numbers are classified, currently ffdos defend over 100,000 flight segments per month. and 1.58 million flight segments per year. thousands of fdos have been certified through the program despite the budget hasn't grown since its initial inception. currently, ffdos are not allowed from

the states can invade federal authority and the federal government can invade state authority. and the federal government cannot invade state authority. if we lose this case, federalism is effectively dead. that is very inconsistent with justice kennedy's very consistent jurisprudence in this area. i view a ruling by justice kennedy that the individual mandate as constitutional would be a substantial departure from his past jurisprudence. there are others that do not thi think it is as substantial. justice scalia was in the majority in the last commerce case in 2005. that is a cause for concern. it was unique. that case was about marijuana. there are some people who think that certain justices will extend themselves to bring anything drug-related within the federal power. justice roberts, some people look at his joining the majority in the comstock case the week before the federal government filed their motion to dismiss as a harbinger of doom for our side. i do not see it that way, despite the very broad language of the case, which was a necessary and proper clause case. the v

in fact, the states most lower federal courts have found, in fact, all lower federal courts have found, the states have no whatever regarding the individual mandate because it does not affect them. it affects individuals and the courts have said that states have no interest in trying to prevent citizens, their residence to fighting what the federal government, which the same citizens elect, has decided to do. the states only interest is in the medicaid program in which they have a financial stake. it's interesting to note at least 13 ss of the brief side wig the government saying they like this program because it helps them carry out their own unable to do on their own, because they are all part of a much bigger nation. >> and we'll get to hear more about medicaid later in the program today. we'll hear more arguments as well as the justices tackle that issue. jess bravin before we let you go, you're sitting in the court during these oral arguments. been a reporter a long time cover the supreme court. what is it like for you? is this a difference experience than covering it to go to cas

and new york can no more tell the federal government what to do with the federal government's money than the federal government can tell new york what to do with the monies that new york is collecting. >> right. and if new york and the united states figured out a way to tax individuals at greater than 100% of their income, then maybe you could just say it's two separate sovereigns, two separate taxes. but we all know that in the real world to the extent the federal government continues to make staxs that decreases the ability on the states to tax. >> are you suggesting that at a certain point the states would have a claim against the federal government raising their taxes because somehow the states will feel coerced to lower their tax rate? >> no, justice sotomayor. i'm suggesting it's not the case to say, well, it's free money so we don't have to ask if the program is coerced. >> counsel, what percentage does it become coercive? meaning, as i look at the figures i've seen from amici, there are some states for whom the percentage of medicaid funding to their budget is close to 40%, but t

the federal reserve system. before his term as president held a variety of decisions in his 34 year career with the bank including director of research. is a member of the economic advisory panel of the federal reserve bank of new york from 2004-2000. is currently director of the corporation, face on, owens and minor incorporated and t. rowe price group it is also member of the board of visitors of virginia commonwealth university and a bunch of other boards, keep going. so he's now going to tell us whether monetary policy would've been a lot better if he got to vote more. >> i'm not sure i'm going to exactly that. thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here and to participate in this program. as you suggested, for most of my current even working at the fed or since then over the last eight years or so on turning it reasonably close range but richmond is only about 100 miles south of d.c. so i've seen a lot of proposed legislation, and this, congress and, i applaud you for this proposal. i have some very --

taken force from europe will play russian federation and from the russian federation to the lord fortunately agency. we have a close cooperation when it comes to drug related crime severe we exchange also strategic paper pick and force. and we will have. a much more plough circle peroration in the future because research. negotiation on growing pre-trained russian federation and europe will be some type of rationing equipment and this operational agreement which will be in place. in the future. allow us and this is a milestone in the corporation with us this will allow us to cooperate much more closer meaning that we are also a lot in that exchange with your country personally rather than are other examples of really joint criminal investigations with the russians. so far we made a big rumpus not allowed to have a real criminal investigation speaking to your country and. because russia is not a hundred. russia is we cannot be a member of the lord because this is for the. it's the name explaining it it's the twenty seven member states of. britain but britain is also a member or is it again br

first of all, federal prisons. as i look at the department's budget, almost one-third of the justice department money is going in to federal prisons. that amount is now at $6 billion, and it is rapidly approaching almost what the fbi budget is which is $8 billion. now, my question is, what's going on with federal prisons? if people are incarcerated -- first of all, we want the bad guys and gals off the street. so we want you to prosecute and incarcerate particularly where there are people who constitute a danger to our country or to our communities. we -- i don't know if we can sustain this growth. and then i'm concerned about once we put them in, it's a resolving door and we keep expanding their prisons with the same people. they keep coming back. could you elaborate on your department's needs, but is there any recommendations you'd have to begin to contain the prison population? are we federalizing too many crimes? is recidivism the problem? again, safe streets, but this is really an ever-increasing part of our a

is there a federal law requiring ts?pitals to treat indigenc is there a federal law?st: i will start. certainly, it is in disputed that this was originally a conservative idea. it came out of the heritage foundation. a came as a response to hillarycare. there was a response that if we're going to have this socialized medicine system, let's have a republican alternative that is market-based people to buy insurance. the genesis of this idea was conservative. i think it is also true that people like chuck grassley, who used to say this is a great idea, this anti-free-rider idea. hospitals are not allowed to turn you away. you really are subsidizing the uninsured. that was the idea. responseor grassley's is that it is unconstitutional. states are allowed to do a lot of things the federal government is not allowed to do. you cannot quite make the analogy that romneycare is unconstitutional if obamacare is unconstitutional. in principle, you are right. omneycare is a much beloved in massachusetts. host: here is the front page of "roll call" this morning showing rick santoru

then we support the russian federation and get it open with action. and the moment we are far away from. relocate witnesses from the russian federation to a country of european union why serious. we have the rupee law enforcement agency just what we need. to pick a lot mental strength of eyes and harmonize. protection procedures around the world so so the news that witnesses from western europe can be relocated to russia to protection these reports are not true i mean if if. there is a. country in the rest of europe and the russian federation this can become replacing do you think it makes sense because you see what the reason i'm asking it's very difficult to hide an afro american in the eskimo village it is so it is it is a little bit creepy hour to try and frenchmen or an englishman in siberia well. so to relocate from. one country to another country is always based on principles and started. the sea just and one of the principle is that. one of the reasons is will be placed in another country without having reached an agreement to be placed before

no federal mandates and no federal research and involved in a program that uses 90% here, 100% federal money. it means that there is flexibility built into the program subject to certain rules that the federal government has to about how it wishes its money to be used. it is like giving a gift certificate. if i give you a gift certificate for one store, you cannot use it for other stories. but still you can use it for all kinds of different things. >> i absolutely agree that it is cooperative federalism and the states have choices, then that is perfectly okay. that is why voluntariness coercion is so important. as long as it is voluntary, then state officials should not contain -- complained about the way the state is administering a program that the state volunteer to participate in. if not, it is not fair to tell the official they have no choice. who will they complain too at the federal level? there is no one there. i am not saying that is the solution, but it actually is better than what you get when you have mandatory federalism and you lose the accountability that is center to th

that's the reason we created a federal government in 1787. the primary impetuous for doing that was to protect the nation. i think it's a legitimate responsibility to make sure cockpits are defended so airplanes can't be used as weapons against our country again. >> based upon the current federal budget for this program to be $22 million, the amount of money each pilot is paid to participate in the program, i would suggest as i have done on the hill, that the pilots are paying for the program right now. way far and above whatever the federal government is paying right now. if you look at over $400 million spent by pilots, $22 million to $25 million by the federal government, pilots are paying for it. >> i'll go down the panel and see if there are last thoughts or comments before we close. >> i'll just remind you this has been an uphill battle for ten years. little over ten years. it was an uphill battle to get the program initiated. there's great resistance to that. there's been great resistance during this last ten years. in the procedures o

these are not based on federal or state policy decisions. this is trying to improve how much we draw down at the hospitals. we have a few initiatives. the first initiatives as emergency department and operational of efficiency. we did research that shows about 10% of the visits to our emergency room end up leaving before they make it into the hospital system, and that is a bad outcome for patients come and about outcome for us in terms of being able to get patients who need to be an acute care setting. we have some investments in staffing in the budget. we agree directed vacant positions to allow us to engage people more quickly when they come into the emergency room to mixture we are getting them into the hospital. and this allows us to draw down funded with their in the hospital. supervisor wiener: is that people better in the waiting room and taking many hours so they just leave it? >> that is essentially. either they are waiting or not to engage in a way where -- where we're giving them immediately in a place where they need to be. >supe

the federal requirements will be pretty steep. they will require us to invest more money in our department. while we see the reductions in looking at the reductions, we are required to invest more dollars for milestones to meet some of the federal health-care obligations. it represent order to $25 billion in new revenue that the federal government has given us, but that represents 80 million, because we leverage those dollars to medical. almost 80 million is required for the performance milestone. we have come in you will see will will be increasing the primary care area in the specialty service area, because those of the requirements we have to meet. one of the other requirements we have to meet is moving into the 21st century in electronic medical records, and $5.4 million in additional investments are required to do that. we have to achieve levels of meaningful youth. one of those is we have an electronic health record. there will be porter's -- portals for consumers to be able to get into the electronic health records. those a

they gave it to the federal government for a federal purpose. 36 years ago the federal government no longer needing the land gave it back to this county for a public park. as a public park it is useless. now, that's the common bond here. it is not needed as a park. it is not used as a park. there is no parking. it is inaccessible. it is lousy for that purpose. the county, though, would like to use their land to do economic development because that is where it is and for what it would best be used. how it would help the public and the general good is it was used for economic development. and all they need is the federal government to graciously grant a deed restriction which they refuse to do for whatever purpose no one really knows. but they won't do it. that is why the county needs to keep the county land to do something that is common sense. simply use the land for the purpose in which it best suits the needs of the people. and i don't know why the department of interior in its wisdom decides they want to tell the county in virginia what is best for virginia, but that is exactly wh

federal agency task force is supported to promote federal coordination of all resources. we look forward to that time when stake holders, the brain injury association of america, the national disability rights network and individual tbis and their families to provide input as we develop a national plan and priority for tbi. thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes dr. winston for five minutes for an opening statement. >> good afternoon. thank you, chairman, for calling this hearing and inviting e ini testify. i'm encouraged to see the increase in attention. my name is dr. flaura winston. i serve at children's hospital philadelphia as well as professor of pediatrics at the university of pennsylvania. in addition to being a doctor, i'm a board certified practicing pediatrician and public health researcher. the children's hospital of philadelphia is the nation's largest pediatric health care network and home to one of the largest pediatric research programs in the u.s. i am humbled by the commitment and skill the hospital brings to pediatric injury, much of wh

, and requirements from historical state people and historical federal people. and it's just -- in our world, it's made it very, very difficult to execute money. so as a result, i think there is money that appears like it isn't needed because it hasn't been executed. but i think realistically, the grant funding, port security grant funding is still needed. and my principle recommendation would be to restore the funding to the levels. it's been dramatically cut, about 75% over the period of the -- over the last three or four fiscal years. and in addition to that, really take a look at the grant system and try to fix that, and then you will be able to sort of execute all the funding. because as we go and try to do our day to day business, and we're a very large port with a very big staff, it is extremely difficult for us to deal with the grant process. and i can't even imagine how a smaller port can deal with the grant funding process. there is not a week that goes by at the port of los angeles where somebody doesn't just say this is so difficult, why don't we jus

the federal office of indian affairs did acknowledge obligations to remnants of removed tribes. as for other native people, the united states demured. ironically the people who were not supposed to be in the south, that is those whose nations had removed had a legitimacy denying indians who were never slated for federal removal. a history of removal affirmed the indian identity of remnant peoples. that acknowledgement did not necessarily give them access to schools, social services, transport, public accommodations or jobs reserved to whites.estn carolina, for example, denied admission to cherokee students in the 1890s. the white school in florida expelled four or five seminoles who enrolled in 1916 because local whites objected. porch creeks in alabama gained admission to a white high school only in 1936 and as late as the 1950s mississippi choctaws were restricted to use of colored facilities and generally treated as colored. whites conceded the racial identity of all these people as indian, but jim crow's purpose was to protect whiteness, note to segregate the white populatio

i support the federal air marshal program 100%. as an aviator, as an airline pilot, i love it when they're onboard. i also want to see our pilots armed. for the price of an air marshal, $3,300 per flight, for the price of two in the front of an aircraft, you could fill up business and coach with federal flight deck officers on a 777. that's 440 flight deck officers peppered across the system. amount of flights covered would be enormous. the two forces combined, federal air marshals, flight deck officers, provide that last line of defense. they need to be preserved. currently, where the administration is headed is to say we don't want you to spend $10,000 of your own money, pilots, thank you very much. we believe the cockpit door suffices, even though it opens and closed and at times has had problems. they are turning those folks away. that is a travesty. that puts us in jeopardy, puts the flying public in jeopardy. that is not only a misunderstanding of security in aviation, but clearly some of the comments i heard they are not fro

the two forces combined, federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers, last line of defense. the missing, we believe the door is sufficient. they're turning those folks away. we think that is a travesty. that puts us in jeopardy, but the flying public in jeopardy. we think is that only a misunderstanding of security and aviation, and from the comments i've heard indicate [unintelligible] we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but not infallible. this current budget proves his in ministration this not support this program and we have to go to the legislators for that support. we're asking for the support in this. the federal flight deck officer program is the most cost- effective program to counter terrorism we have at $15 a flight. it represents the third largest group in the nation and a group of people willing to spend incredible amounts of their own money to protect the public, protector airlines, and to protect themselves. so any changes to this, any changes to this program right now would be done at the expense of all of us. >> thank you. questions from the

but what is enduring is our federal trust relationship as individual indian nations with the federal government and whether or not the federal government carries out its responsibilities in that particular area. in the appropriations area where as jackie said i specialize and spend a great deal of time, this has been a pretty good year for us. i want to commend the administration -- i'm a very conservative republican. obviously i have some differences with the administration but each year that the president has been in office he's put forward a real budget and a good budget and a serious budget for us to consider in the legislative process and certainly on the house side, i can tell you we have a real bipartisan alliance on interior appropriations where most indian funding takes place. our subcommittee chairman from idaho, our ranking member jim moran from virginia, have a wonderful partnership is and working relationship. and because of that and working honestly with the administration, we've increased substantially, 10% in the house, appropriations for the indian health service. th

land and our federal waters. we must ensure that the three agencies have the right resources and staffing in place to perform their duties. that's why it's important to start with an overview of where the agencies are in terms of their fiscal year 2013 budget kwi request. the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement for a total of $232 million, a 13% increase. the president's request also continues to the inspection fee program that congress established last year and proposes to collect $65 million in inspection fees from drilling operations to offset the appropriation's request. the budget request also includes a total program level for the bur low of ocean and energy management of $164.1 million. that's a $3 million increase in the 2012 level or approximately 2%. finally, the budget includes a program level of $173.4 million for the bureau of land management's energy program. that's a $33 million increase above the fiscal year 2012 level. or approximately, 23%. the budget request also includes a new $48 m

federal funding source represents 8% of our budget and consist of $4.1 million in federal funds for the yerba buena island project. that is an island i just mentioned for the budget, and we will be shifting expenditures from fiscal year 2011-2012 to fiscal year 2012-2013. the next such a source is the vehicle registration fee. this would be the third year of the program, second year of full revenue collection. we anticipate $4.8 million of that represents 5.2%. the remaining parts of the budget in terms of revenue are less than 2%. city regional grants and program funding have interest earnings of 1.1% and state grant funding of 0.7%, and other revenues were 0.3%. on the next slide, i wanted to highlight the 10-year recap of sales revenues. back in fiscal year 2003-2004, collections were at $64 million. we hit an all-time high in 2007- 2008 with almost $80 million of revenue collection for sales tax. we had a bit in fiscal year 2009-2010 -- a dip. we are slowly climbing back up, and we anticipate a collection of $77.5 million in sales tax revenue for fiscal year 2012- 2013. on our next

the federal government has offered three arguments why the the the insurance mandate is within congress' power. they say it's allowed under the commerce clause, the tax clause, and a necessary and proper clause. but all three of these arguments have the same weakness that is accepted by the court, they would lead to virtually unlimited congressional power. so i did like to start out with a commerce clause argument which is the one that has been emphasized the most in the litigation so far. the commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate cloak, among the several states. so right away when you just look at the text of the clause it seems clear that in order to be authorized by that clause, the measure has to be to requirements. first it has to regulate commerce and second the commerce that it regulates must be interstate. on these criteria the individual mandate is over too. it's not regulated and commerce, not having health insurance is not commerce. and it's not regulating anything that is interstate either. moreover, this sort of common sense interpretation of the clause is ac

davies: my main role as a federal coordinating officer is to make sure that all those groups, both federalstate, and local, are talking to each other and are working together towards a common goal. and that is to bring the community back to some semblance of normalcy. our population has grown exponentially in 200 years and so has the federal bureaucracy that serves it. in 1802 there were just under 10,000 federal employees, most of them in the armed forces. by 2002, there were almost 3 million civilian employees. traditional agencies have gotten bigger, along with the population. and when the public demands that government get involved in solving critical problems caused by changes in social, economic, or political conditions, new agencies spring to life. it was a time when rock 'n' roll, protests, and social causes were the order of the day. such has been the quiet peace and suffrage of all species. [ shouting and chanting ] poussaint: in 1970 people took to the streets to protest the vietn war, racism, and the deteriorating state of the environment. [ chanting "save our earth" ] poussain

most lower federal courts -- all federal courts say the states have now interest -- have no interestn trying to prevent citizens, their residents, fighting the federal government, which the citizens elect, has decided to do. the only interest is in the medicaid program where they have a financial stake. they say they like the program because it helps them with their own responsibilities. >> we will hear more about medicaid later in the program. before we let you go, you have been a court reporter for a long time. what is this like for you? guest: well, it is different in you can sense the importance. the room is filled. the room is often filled, but here, the tension in the air, the expressions on people's faces, it is the difference between a live play and watching it on television. no offense. it is definitely a moment everyone understands is important because we come into the chamber knowing what has happened over the past two years, over the past four years, over the past decade as the debate over health care and federal power has proceeded. so, when it is so difficult to predict

-- the federal government is going to do with federal tax dollars really couldn't be more an thet cal to what the constitution says and what was intended to mean. >> what you said is perfectly correct when it comes to national defense. all right. let's go to the audience. please identify yourself and any affiliation you may have. >> hi. my name is melissa ortiz, which rhymes with quiz not to be confused with ortiz. i am the founder of of the common sense approach to disability issues. i have a couple of questions. my first question for everybody on that platform is did you or did you not read the legislation in its purest form, all 2,000 pages of it? >> no. >> no. >> absolutely not. >> nor did anyone in congress. >> well again, let me state that my name is melissa ortiz, and i did, all 2,000 pages of it. and frankly, i am bothered by the fact that not only are we not discussing some things that need to be discussed -- i mean not just medicaid, medicare, that individual mandate, we need to be discussing why our government is allowed -- why people in our government are allowed to write

so the federal reserve, by owning $1.2 trillion in u.s. treasuries, is really facilitating this spending, and it seems like you all have the capability to give some discipline into the institutions here in washington that don't have the discipline internally, even if it was only a 10% reduction, and say, we're not going to buy that many treasurers, not going to do that much quantitative easing or whatever measure you're using. why don't y'all say no? >> because our mandate, given to us by congress, is try to achieve maximum employment and price stability. and that's what denser our interest rate. >> maximum permanent price stability. you've already said that we're facing very serious thing ifs we keep spending what we're spending. >> that's correct. that's why i'm here advocating to congress that congress take responsible action. >> well, you were independent and you're not indicating any discipline and disciplining us. thank you, mr. chairman. >> time of the gentleman is now expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado, m