. >> if we were to the federal market stability, where comprised all of federal regulators and maybe outside experts and others to look at what could be done with regard to the derivative regulations, should an insurance representative or representative be at the table and who should be at the table should it be a rotating state regulator or should it -- we set up the office of insurance information if we set that up, it would be the head of that entity to be involved in that. >> unequivocally congress wom, a state regulator should be in the conversation with the council. >> should it be rotating, or could we use the office of insurance information? >> that's right, i expect it would be rotating. i think there's value in having that diversity of opinion, although a consistent standard message, but diversity of perspective, absolutely. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mrs. biggert. >> let me ask, we're here debating this largely because of actions that stemmed from the problems at aig with expensive trading and credit default swaps out of their financial p

this legislation enables the federal work force to achieve that objective. it's a noble, national objective and what america ought to be about. let's get this legislation passed. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from california has 6 1/4 and the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes remaining. mr. issa: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman from california re served. mr. lynch: we continue to reserve. mr. issa: is the gentleman prepared to close? the chair: the gentleman from california has 6 1/4 and the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes remaining. mr. lynch: i believe we have people on our list but haven't come, so i'm prepared to close. mr. issa: i'm prepared to close and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: in a few short minutes, we will complete general debate and go to amendments. at that time, i'm hopeful that the amendments offered by the committee, republica

the federal reserve also have to appropriate regarding issues of public disclosure. as i wrote in a letter to this committee neither i nor any member of the federal reserve directed come instructed board buys bank of america to withhold from public disclosure and information relating to merrill lynch including its losses, compensation packages are bonuses or any other related matter. these obligations belongs squarely with the company and the federal reserve did not interfere in the company's disclosure decisions. the federal reserve had a legitimate interest in knowing when bank of america or merrill lynch intended to disclose those losses at merrill lynch. given the fragility of the financial markets at that time we were concerned about the potential for a strong adverse market reaction to the reports of significant losses at merrill lynch. if federal assistance is stabilizing these companies were to be effective the necessary facilities would have to be in place as of the disclosure date. dessauer planning with importantly influence by the company's plan disclosur

ostriches can now deny the need for establishing a federal insurance resource center and a basic federal insurance regulatory structure. insurance is a complex and important part of the u.s. financial industry with more than $6.3 trillion in assets under management and $1.23 trillion in annual premiums. we need to recognize this realitiy by modernizing the overall regulatory treatment of insurance. we also need to protect against the risks certain sectors of the industry may pose and address the greater sensitivity some industry segments have to external events. during this crisis we saw a company that started out as an insurer spread far and wide in its activities and its international presence. american international group, however, lacked a federal regulator with real expertise about its vast insurance operations. rather, the holding company purchased a small thrift and shows the office of this supervision as its supervisor. currently several other insurance holding companies have a federal banking@@@@@@')r examine all complex financial holding companies, including those whose primary

they ob taken a federal charter. we further recommend that any financial reform incorporate authority for regulatory recognition to facilitate cooperation and enforcement with regulators. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, now we'll hear from mr. patrick s. baird, chief

appear before them for the most part make more than the federal judge. but they serve not because of money. they serve because of their pride and belief in our constitution and public service. judge kent is the exception to this rule. we are past the stage of allegations because he made admissions against his own interests in a court of law sufficient to convict him of a felony to the degree it is an abuse of office. abuse of duty. while serving on the bench in a courtroom. that's basically the end of the story. it is a felony, it's a high crime and misdemeanor. his actions since the conviction show a haughty spirit and total disregard for misconduct. in the united states we don't pay federal judges to go to the penitentiary. he should be impeached today by this body. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king

>> i was part of the federal judges association which represents 900 federal district and appellate court judges so -- >> and we appreciate that. >> oh, thank you. [laughter] >> having heard perspectives from five different circuits you just wonder if anybody is looking at establishing some notion of best practices or, you know, really trying to draw in the wisdom of you people in the field. my sense the judicial conference is kind of way up here and not necessarily sort of down on the ground looking at some of these issues. some of you have some very good and interesting ideas. let me turn to judge reinhart who has an interesting perspective and will say something different. >> i think judge berzon save you an accurate picture of the problems on the 9th circuit so let me turn to some more general problems. i believe that one of the most significant problems, if not the most these days, is the effort of the federal courts recently to close access to the courts. i agree with judge williams but it's a broader problem as far as i'm concerned. we've had a lot of technicians in the federal cou

there are great federal employees. immaterial to keep them. and many of them are incredibly dedicated public servants. but look at the annual leave of the federal government versus the annual leave on average in the private sector, and federal workers are already receiving a better deal, look at the annual sick leave of federal government compared to the average sick leave in the private sector. the federal government workers are already receiving a better deal. look at the family medical leave. you can see that federal government workers already receive on average a better deal than those in the private sector. so again, when they're enjoying on average greater benefits, enjoying greater job security, what a slap in the face of every worker in america who doesn't receive a government paycheck to say that all of a sud, they're going to have to pay for a -- all of a sudden, they're going to have to pay for a new benefit for federal workers. this is on top of the fact that the federal government is already having to borr

can't get it because the federal government says so. this is especially important if we have a government-run insurance company, which is what many on the other side of the aisle are talking about. the president has said that he wants a so-called public option so that there will be a government insurance company that will be a place where everybody could go for coverage if they don't have it. i happen to think there are better ways of getting everybody covered. to the extent we have some people who need help in getting coverage, the government can provide that help without changing the coverage the rest of us have. surveys show 2-1 everybody believes we should help people get insurance who don't have it. by the same rough numbers, everybody says, however, you don't need to affect my coverage in order to do that. in other words, i have insurance, i like it, i want to keep it. i don't want to change and i don't want to have to pay through my insurance or through having care rationed in order to make sure somebody else gets care. the botto

this bill should be, the bill what congress needs to do to expend federal benefits to federal employees, while knowing in april, there were 611,000 private sector jobs that were lost. that is what should be the name of the bill. this is what congress is going to do some some three million jobs that have been lost while this administration has been in power. this is the answer to three million job losses in the private sector. we're going to extend benefits, further benefits to the federal government. i understand that, because federal government employment has risen about 100,000. and with car companies and banks and everything else, no telling how many federal employees we'll end up with at the end of this year. maybe i was wrong. maybe there is a strong demand for federal government employees who want additional benefits. but we should remember that back home where i'm from and where a lot of people are from, 611,000 jobs disappeared in the month of april. and this is the response from our democrat majority and our president. let's go spend more money. new benefits for federal governm

a federal capital budget, even if the federal capital budget doesn't fund the total infrastructure picture but just funds the infrastructure bank, it could work. so the time is in my judgment the time calls for bold and strong actions. if we do this, the obama administration and this congress will be remembered at the same way that president eisenhower and the congress he worked with is remembered for building the national highway system. >> thank you very much. i didn't want you to speed up at the end, but the -- you got me so excited about high speed. thanks very much. now, for mr. szabo, we'd like to hear from you. >> thank you, chairman lautenberg, senator thune, senator hutchinson and members of the congress. it's an honor to appear here on behalf of president obama, vice president biden and secretary lahood to discuss the future of high-speed rail. the obama administration has a vision that ensures safe and efficient transportation choices. one that builds a foundation for economic competitiveness, one that promotes energy efficiency, environmental quality and one that supports inter

the reason we need the federal law is that the federal government has the resources and the capacity to respond when many types the states cannot. i want to make it clear what this bill fully protects first amendment rights. this is against violent actions, not against speech. hate crimes not only affect the victim, they affect the entire community. it is time for us to act. and i hope we will soon pass the matthew shepherd hate crimes prevention act of 2009. lastly, i want to talk about health care reform. there has been a lot of debate and a lot of conversation about health care reform and what we need to do. i hope the only option that's not on the table is the status quo. we cannot allow the current system to continue. i say that for several reasons. first, the matter of cost. this system we cannot afor. the nation's -- afford. the nation's health care costs are $7,400 for every man, woman and child in this country for a total of $2.4 trillion. we spend 15% of our gross domestic product on health care in 2006, the highest country by far. switzerland which is number two, spends 11

did the federal government tell mr. lewis to keep quiet about the escalating merrill lynch losses, and the government goes a commitment to provide billions in federal funding? -- and the government's commitment to provide billions in federal funding? we also intend to invite mr. paulson, and mr. bernanke to testify at a future date. the committee's willingness to issue subpoenas should show full cooperation by prospective witnesses. i want to thank mr. lewis for being here today, and i look forward to his testimony. at this time, i yield to the ranking member of the committee from california. . . ranking member of the the committee, mr. darrell eisner of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this important hearing today. it's important that those of us who see this hearing today recognize that we are not here to evaluate the value of bank of america or merrill lynch or their transition, whether it was their transition, whether it was a good deal then good deal today, for either of the parties. we

it is not a pleasant task to impeach a federal judge.yet when a judge so clearly abuses his office, it becomes necessary to take the appropriate action in order to restore the confidence of the american people in their judicial system. the constitution gives the house of representatives the power and responsibility to impeach federal judges. it is my strong recommendation that the members of the house adopt these articles of impeachment against judge kent. it is my hope that the united states senate will then act to swiftly bring this matter to trial and quick disposition. i would also ask -- also like to take this opportunity to thank adam schiff, the chairman of the task force on judicial impeachment for his leadership in this effort, along with all of the members of the task force on both sides of the aisle. as ranking member of the task force, i appreciate the fact that this effort has been undertaken in an extremely nonpartisan fashion. i would like to thank chairman conyers and ranking member smith for their comprehensive, yesterda

eligibility requirement of 200% of the federal poverty level. the amendment also includes that one of the criteria for eligibility be that the individual must have a chronic disease condition. and i recognize that that may be a negotiable proposal here. we are looking at this right choices program. it's been scored at $15.2 billion over ten years. i'm not questioning that it is makes good sense to have some kind of a one-time health risk appraisal, but i think in an effort to look at the cost and look at where we are spending our dollars, to reduce it from 350% of the fpl, which is about 77,000 for a family of four, to a level of 200%, when we were discussing schip and where we were with that program the discussion at that point in time was having the fp l at 200%. in alaska we're at 170% of fpl with our schip program. you've got to draw a line somewhere with the cost and in terms of those who are covered, and i would suggest that 200% of federal poverty level gets us to the point where we are providing a level of screening and health risk appra

the creation of the federal functional regulator would give the federal agency and the pecks per tees to regulate the insurance industry and cooperate and give information to the systemic regulator. >> but absent that? >> absent that, that is a concern and i think it's incomplete. >> congressman, mr. chairman, if i might add briefly there is a concern for the regulators. the regulation of the insurance industry is the bank industry. so the regulators have expert e expertise, but should want be displaced. one of the priorities of any systemic regulator is to recognize and value the expertise and functional regulator, facilitate communication among those regulators and prevent the systemic disruption that we've experienced. >> thank you, panel. appreciate it. >> thank you very much, mr. garrett. thank you, mr. chairman. it is interesting that i heard pretty much everyone say that the insurance industry doesn't threaten the system. i'm just curious, are you familiar with the acronym tria? tria was the one that that the insurance company had a pass and everyone was afraid they would take

the first one was heavily regulated by the federal government if you think the federal government is there to help you in any business that you involved in, you are not because they are sold -- you are nuts. there are so heavy handed, they will micromanage our business until there is no business. the second one is the auto industry. i have been in finance sales management, the whole 9 yards, closing, everything to the third is the housing industry. i will tell you, when they talk about community reinvestment act, fannie and freddie and all this good stuff, i went to the real estate and saw the difference, the qualifications and requirements for loans. if you did not have a big financial score that exceeded 640 points, you did not qualify for a loan for a car. just automatically. in the housing industry, if you had a number of 530, you could buy a house. now, the problem, what i saw, with people being set up for failure. it was obviously the community reinvestment act, locking in a voting block for a particular party. i watched barney frank' and bill clinton pass it. i got out of the

salary while sitting in prison for federal obstruction of justice. judge kent has remained on the bench long after he sexually assaulted two women and lied to law enforcement officials. it is now time for justice, justice for the american people, who have been exploited by a judge who ignored his oath of office. though his attorney claims that congress has, quote, better things to do, end quote, ensuring that a federal judge convicted of a felony does not receive a taxpayer-funded salary while sitting in jail is important to our system of justice and the priority of this congress. every day that judge kent remains on the bench is one day too long. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these articles of impeachment to restore integrity to the federal bench. i hope the senate will act quickly to ensure swift justice for judge kent, his victims, and the american people. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pl

i suggest that might an model that's appropriate at the federal level as a federal backstop.ow there are proposals to build massive new high voltage infrastructure over the entire eastern interconnect, the so-called overlays. part of that a $3.2 billion, 765 kb project largely in michigan has been evaluated by the midwest system independent operator and determine not to meet the cost benefit test for the state of michigan. a number of independent system operators and planning authorities in the eastern interconnect recently studied a joint coordinated system plan that was referred to earlier involving a $56 billion high voltage overlay. some have referred to it as equivalent of constructing the interstate highway system. that study concluded state of michigan would receive no benefit at fairly large cost. looking at consumer customer s were spread on a postage stamp we're seeing an increase for a 2.5 billion annual benefit. michigan can't afford that. another $10 to $12 billion project that's been proposed to bring wind power from the dakotas to as far east as chicago but doe

or state, federal or state laws governing banking activities. the controller invoked this regulation to gain a federal court injunction against the new york attorney general when that officer attempted to investigate national bank's lending practices for violations of state and federal antidiscrimination laws the second circuit affirmed the injunction in principal part, holding that controller's regulations reasonably interpreted the ambiguous term visitorial powers. finally and foremost in importance, riciv. destefano -- not to certify the racially skewed results of a promotional exam for firefighters. ricci and his fellow -- fellow plaintiffs, mostly white, performed well on the exam. most african-americans and hispanic test takers scored low. the city asserted that if it certified the test results, it would be vulnerable to a title vii disparate impact suit. disappointed minority firefighters would target the examination's failure to identify and accurately test for the skills most relevant to leadership posts. ricci, on the other hand, sees

uses the strategic plan the first step in planning federal involvement. f.r.a.has emphasized that it will involve stakeholders to help develop high-speed rail that's under its control. officials told us that it plans to spend recovery act funds in ways that shows success to help keep long-term political support for these projects at the local level. in conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in recovery act funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable high-speed rail projects. the host of seeming and attractable issues, such as through high cost, uncertain ridership and need for broad political support that have hamped hampered development of these projects are still with us, and these issues will need to be resolved to effectively spend recovery act funds. surmounting these challenges will require federal, state and other stakeholder leadership to champion the development of economically viable high-speed rail corridors and the political will to carry them out. if will also require clear, specific policies and delineations of expected outcom

information that you have to other federal banking regulators? >> the federal reserve has made enormous strides in the last year and under my chairmanship to expand the information we release monthly information on all the various programs that we have. we've developed a website and monthly reports that involves all kind of information we think we are quite transparent. we are happy to work with congress if they have further concerns about any programs we are more than happy to work with you to make sure that you're comfortable and that they are well managed and serving the public purpose. >> do you think it would cause problems for the fed or the economy if that legislation was to pass? >> my concern about the legislation is if the gao is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and details of the programs but making judgments about policy decisions that would effectively be a takeover monetary policy by the congress a repudiation of the independence of the federal reserve which would be destructive to the stability of the finan

i suggest that might be a model appropriator at the federal level as a federal backstop. now their proposals to build massive new high-voltage infrastructure over the entire eastern interconnect, the so-called overlays. part of that, it's free $.2765 billion kv project has been evaluated by the middle is independent system operator in determined not to meet a cost that the test for the state of michigan. a number of independent system operators and planning authorities in the eastern interconnect recently studied a joint coordinated system plan that was referred to earlier involving a 56 billion-dollar high-voltage overlay. some have referred to it as the equivalent of constructing an interstate highway system. the study concluded that michigan would receive virtually no benefit at fairly large costs. looking just to consumers customers of cossler spread on a postage stamp basis to all of our customers we would pay 100 $9 million in increased costs or roughly 80 million-dollar annual benefit. i did submit michigan simply can't afford that. another ten to 12 billion-dollar

federer takes the second set in the tie-break. we go to the third set. federer down 4-5. in the tie-break. soderling, serves and then a solid forehand up the line and federer does that. he ties the tiebreaker at 5-all. soderling perhaps shaken up a bit by federer's talent on that last point. double fault. match point now for federer, roger serving. soderling, misses the return wide. federer, in straight sets. 23 aces, zero double faults for roger federer on the day. >> it was definitely sort of a serving contest out there today. not many rallies, so maybe not as much fun for the people, but, you know, i stayed calm and waited for my chance and thank god i came up with a good form when i had to in the breaker. you know, it's always going to be hard for him to keep serving those big second serves when it really mattered, that's why i wasn't particularly surprised that he hit a double fault in the breaker. >> i thought i played a great first week. today was different just because it's not that many rallies. it was a different type of match. it could be the same again in the

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

federal agencies. there are already many valuable programs being funded through the federal agencies that could play an important role in sharing knowledge and passion for stem with students, teachers and the general public. unfortunately many agencies have had difficult evaluating their programs and building awareness of those programs among teachers. in order to make the most effective use of our federal investment in stem education, it is crucial the agencies have a forum where they can come together to discuss tools for improved dissemination, share research findings and create common met tricks for evaluation. this would establish a committee under stem education on the council at the office of science and technology 308cy. this committee would be charged with coordinating the stem education programs and activities being funded through the federal r&d mission agencies. this bill also requires the committee to establish and maintain a comprehensive inventory of federally sponsored stem education ac

but particularly that of a federal judge. why do i say that? because they are given lifetime tenure and in this circumstance he was the sole judicial officer in this courthouse. interestingly now, he says to us we should have some sympathy for him and extend him some mercy because he had no peers to speak with, anybody he could talk to about the serious problems in his life. the fact that he was the only judicial officer in that courthouse gave him enormous power, which he repeated to his victims on more than one occasion, saying he was the law, he was the judge. in other words, he had what i refer to as a reign of judicial terror or tyranny over these individuals. to misuse that power in such a way to put these women in a situation where they thought they had nowhere to turn. just based on that he ought to be removed from office. i should say to our colleagues who are watching in their offices right now, a simple review of the report presented by this committee will show sufficient evidence to justify every single article. we will vote on ever

from when she was first nominated to the federal bench by federal george h.w. bush and we have her record after she became a member of the federal court of appeals nominated by president bill clinton. and what is that record? it's a main stream record of judicial restraint and modesty in the best indication of her judicial philosophy. we don't have to imagine what kind of a judge she will become because we have seen what kind of a judge she has been. and actually, this is a case where a week before -- mr. president, i've been here 35 years. i've had the privilege of voting on every member of the current supreme court. i also voted on chief justice rehnquist for chief justice and sandra day o'connor for associate justice. and i had one rule on every single one of those. i would make up my mind based on the record, based on the cases i read, based on what i saw and heard from the nominee and i refused to meet with the special interest groups of either the right or the left. i would urge senators, we get well paid. we have great staffs. request don't we forget the

as plaintiff in an action, it fostered a number of federal offices -- he sued a number of federal offices alleging his harsh treatment carried out a discriminatory policy in which he was designated a person of high interest because of his race, religion or national origin. former attorney general ashcroft and the director of the f.b.i. were both named defendants. they thought threshold dismisal on grounds of qualified immunity. disagreeing with the district court and court of appeals, the supreme court held the plaintiff's pleadings insufficient to state a claim for relief against ashcroft and the f.b.i. director. the majority opinion and justice souter's dissent variously interpreted the court's 2000 decision in bell atlantic corporation v. tromley. under tromley, a plaintiff must allege facts that if taken as true state a plausible basis for relief. well, is district judge lynch with us? jerry didn't create the plausibility standard, but he did begin the whole business, so perhaps he can tell us which side got it right in this case. in my personal view, the court messed up the federal r

i can assure you no level of federal involvement will make this go away. still, the state and local level provides an important venue for all parties to be heard. state regulators know the geography and citizenry better than any federal agency can. our processes are transparent and give all parties a voice. what some may consider roadblocks and impediments we consider process. let me tell you more of what we're doing in vermont. it has a planning process that analyzes potential transmission constraints over a 20-year horizon and considers various alternatives including targeted energy efficiency programs that would address any identified, reliable issues. the process ensures that solutions to transmission constraints 11 the long-term needs of consumers at the lowest cost. after decades, without major investment, the public service board has approved three major transmission projects from 2005 to 2008 with total projected capital over half a billion dollars. at the regional level, these without any transmission investme investment, more than 4 million has b

i wanted to ask you as an alternative to federal regulations, some have recommended moving to federal minimum standards that would enforce by the current state insurance regulatory structure. would that solve the regulatory burden in areas such as licensing, market conduct, and speed to market if not, please explain why? >> thank you for the question. we believe it does not. we believe federal minimum standards, many of us run national businesses. we unlike the profit and casualty industry, we price a product one time for all 50 states. our producers are often national. our producers often have customers move from one state to another. so when someone suggests that federal minimum standards is the answer, what that means is those minimum standards will be met but there will be still be 51 different sets of rules and regulations that we must file product approves for and design products around and producers must license for. so we think that that's solves very little, if anything. >> mr. skinner, listening to your reports, when we think about it and you're talking about working with al

federal fund. other e-mails reveal that federal analysts found it suspect that mr. lewis claimed to be surprised by the rapid growth of merrill's losses given the clear sign in the data. they noted that at a minimum it called into question the due diligence process. bank of america has been doing in preparation for the takeover cht in short, the treasury department had provided a $20 billion for a shot gun wedding. but the question may be, what was -- who was holding the shot gun? at today's hearing, we hope to better understand what happened in the four months between september 15, 2008, when the merger was announced, and january 16, 2009, when the public learned that bank of america had received $20 billion in taxpayer money. we will be looking for answers to some puzzling questions. why did a private business deal announced in september, and approved by share holders in december with no mention of government assistance end up costing taxpayers $20 billion in january? did paulson and bernanke abu

>> it's the not the problem with the federal government it's the problem with the states of the federal government. of the federal lands especially across the west. could you elaborate on that and perhaps give us some specific examples. >> sure, mr. chairman. let me mention a couple of things. at a meeting of the western governors in february, governor otter from idaho made the statement very clearly that in those instances where we have the opportunity to cite transmission lines and not go through federal lands we're often going to want to exercise that. there are a couple of issues that come to mind in terms of permitting of federal lands. if you live in the west it's difficult to avoid federal lands. many of the states are covered with lands under federal jurisdiction both the departments of interior, departments of agriculture. so that -- that's certainly an issue. second, there's no priority system. for dealing with lease applications. it's on a first come, first serve basis. one of the things that we're doing with the western renewable energy zones is really point what we think is

the federal reserve board of new york had $85 billion loan to a ing. the testimony today is that money was used to buy all the contracts and cancel them, that's how they took care of that obligation. what was of concern to me and others is the counterparties appeared to have received 100% of that even though testimony from people at aig before the committee said they thought there were a lot of contentious reasons to think they did not all 100% if they would anything at all on those partilar obligations that there had been serious negotiations about whether they should pay anything to the counter parties and if they should pay something, chest and 100% they should pay. we pressed mr. lardy at aig for makarov on just how the negotiations went, why did they pay 100%, his comment was he was the wrong person to talk to and in fact the fed had all of those documents and paperwork because they had struck the deal. so, my question to you is why was 100% paid on these obligations including what was the rationale, why weren't the interest of the public money in

the federal reserve is doing. so i think it is a very good bill that ron paul has, with a lot of co-sponsors, and it is basic transparency. the federal reserve is doing things on the up and up, and they should be willing to share that information with us because they do control our money supply. there was an article that appeared two weeks ago on a thursday in the editorial page of "it will street journal" which shows what they have done with m1, which is the supply of money. you go back from 1960, van de graaff

going to cost a lot of money and it's for federal employees at a time when this federal government needs to be more efficient and the people of this country cannot afford it. we have done it without these number of years. and i'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic times that we have. today, i will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which limits debate and does not provide for the open and honest congress my democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3 1/2 years. i rise in opposition in putting taxpayers further in debt, those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid leave. the economy is in a recession. hello. hello. wake up, washington. we're in a recession and somebody else is going to have to pay for this. i know it's about the kids. i know it's about this bonding for the first 12 weeks. unemployment is at a 25-year high. government spending is out of control. and individuals and retirees that have lost trillions in their savings and retirement are now

the state and the federal government extend its hands into our lives. we elect people and we can attack -- continually like people to continue to do this. there is always a question of where do you draw the line? that line will be in a variety of places.s. >> tomorrow, faiz shakir end of kyle from real clear politics discuss a variety of topics. next, peter brookes will also speak topic. will be lead at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> conservation and the beginning of the 20th century was a battle. just like now on land issues. this historian on teddy roosevelt and his leading role in the early days of the conservation movement. >> he was not where you call a holistic. he believed in hunting. he did not believe in hunting so that you would make a species extinct. yes, he cared about butterflies, wild flowers. he wanted to make sure we have a place for that in modern society. >> tonight, part two would douglas brinkley. that will be at 8:00 p.m. on c- span. or you can listen on xm satellite radio. or listen on podcast. >> this week on prime minister's qu

you can use federal money for nonfederal matching requirements. how much is all of this going to cost. page 45. remember, this is the amendment. not the bill, the amendment, filed at 3:09 a.m. page 45. this section shall apply only to construction beginning after the date of enactment of this bill. for those who don't know it, all california housing standards are now going to be imposed on every american community. you don't have the right to have your own building standards in your community or state. hell, no, the federal government's going to tell you what they are. and guess what, we all get to have california standards. who is going to pay the price for those new homes? how are we going to do affordable housing when we're pushing up the cost of housing? while i'm at it, we have to have an energy rating for every home in america. in this bill. we require every home to have an energy rating. and if you go to sell your house, guess what? you have to have review, bring people in, have them check out your windows, your appliances, your hot water h

>> federal reserve will not monetize the debt.and i think it's important to point out that notwithstanding our purchases of treasuries as part of a program to strengthen private credit market, we will still hold less treasuries, a smaller volume of treasuries than we had before the crisis began. >> if the fed will not monetize the debt and if the congress refuses to deal with the spending curve, which will average about 23% of gdp for the next 10 years, that's either going to leave us with a massive tax increase or massive borrowing, but yet apparently, as we send representatives to china to encourage them to continue to buy our debt, they are shifting to commodities. they are indicating concerns about the level of our debt. recently, as i believe you know, s&p downgraded uk's debt on may 21st from stable to negative. so, what's going to going to ha u.s. loses its aaa rating or what happens if we have a 60% tax increase over the next ten years to deal with this massive infusion of debt? >> at some point, you have to have a path of

what about the independence of the federal reserve? you have got four big policy tools being deployed at full tilt. interest rates, quantitative easing, a balance sheet of around two trillion dollars. you are buying treasury bonds. that is a lot of policy of their that you would have to unwind very quickly in order to turn the corner. what is the exit strategy? what kind of confidence to you have that you will be able to wind all of this down, when the moment comes? no. 2, it was inevitable, i would argue, that your dealings with the treasury were unprecedented. you had to do a lot in the last year to fight inflation, getting everybody to recognize that. that has blurred the distinction of the independence between the administration, executive branch, and federal reserve and its unique role. what do you think of that concern? what are you doing to reassert the independence of the federal reserve, not just in structure, but the impression of the marketplace? >> a long question, i will attempt to address it. we are confident that this pr

in 2008 we had about 1,000 cases per panel, and the federal benchmark is about 500. so in other words, we are doing about double the work that the people who sat down and figured out how much work we ought to be doing said we should. as i said, the filings per panel vary from 256 in the d.c. circuit to over 1,000 in the 11th. so there is enormous variation, and that variation should be taken into acounty in the number of judgeships, biit isn't as a practical matter. what is happening, as i understand it, is there was a judgeship introduced in 2008, and there is supposed to be another one introduced shortly, although it hasn't been. the judicial conference, which is composed of the center judges of all of the circuits decides how many judges to ask for. i can only tell you that the ninth circuit's request has varied from 10 to four, and i guess five now even though our case load has continued to go up. why exactly that is, i don't know. but the last bill requested four new permanent and one new temporary judge for the ninth cirque and a total of -- circuit and a total

what is covered by the federal government. insurance companies frequently employed -- apply those same kinds of rules. you do not want the government making decisions about how much health care or what health care you would have. another point that i have tried to make to folks that if they think that the federal government is not considering this, think about what some people have said in the federal government about allocating treatment based upon cost. no less than the director of the national institutes of health. he announced that the nih could use the stimulus money, the money in the stimulus bill that pays for the comparative effectiveness research to ration care, and just as is done in other countries. the nih released a list of research topics. it called for the rigorous cost- effective analysis. cost effectiveness research will provide accurate and effective information to guide future policies that would allocate the rationalist -- the allocation of resources. that is a euphemism for rationing health care. the presi

the federal government make investment decisions based on faulty forecasts. we are going to fund projects that will be successful. i will direct this first to mr. sable. how are we going to evaluate such projections for proposed projects, are you going to rely on the project sponsor n? >> one of the key projects we will be ranking the applications on, the proposed management plan and management of risk which includes covering the operating costs, those responsibilities belong to the applicant, not the federal government. those forecasts are accurate, of the things we plan to do is build a template where essentially, the data to us, i ran the data for our own calculations, as we compare the projects, we are getting apples to apples comparison. to ensure the integrity of the data, we have accurate forecasts. we understand the fact that the project we choose will be successful. we can not squander this opportunity. the project we select. we won't be a next generation. we understand responsibility we have, we are prepared to take the challenge. >> one of the ways

exception of the federal lands issue? >> there are 29 states that renew their portfolios standards. my state is one of those. it is 20%, by 2015, far ahead of most state standards. those standards have created markets, renewable energy, removed renewable energy into those markets very effectively. that is happening already. on the other hand, i have people coming in to my office who tell me the list is being curtailed because we don't have adequate transmission. that tells me we have a problem. is not simply the markets, it is the need to somehow ensure that this transmission gets built to make it deliverable. we need to make a deliverable. >> you are saying that the stakes are not cooperating in the midwest, in the transmission? >> i am not saying the states or the federal government, it is a combination of the fact we have certain barriers which include issues of cost allocation, that need to be looked at in ways that we can facilitate more transmission. >> you are saying the federal government needs more authority beca

for those projects where they're seeking federal assistance.nother way would be to abstain statements and forecasts from independent sources -- would be to obtain estimates and forecasts from independent sources. and lastly, making the forecasts subjected to peer review and making the data publicly available. so i think that those three things would be to better ensure that the information would be more reliable. >> mr. szabo, after we spend $13 billion that's likely to be appropriated for high-speed rail over the next five years, do you expect the united states to have at least one corridor of substantial length that's served by a japanese or european style high-speed railroad? >> i think it's important