it follows the president's request to freeze federal pay for federal employees. it is consistent with house resolution and mirrors the provisions of the middle has class tax relief and job creation act of 2011, passed by this house last december. opponents of this bill will argue we have -- employees have already done more with less for the last two years. they will claim that supporters of this bill view federal employees as a cost to cut and we want to cut the budget on the backs of federal employees. i disagree with that. we have been fortunate, very fortunate throughout the years to have a very good federal work force, to have talented and hardworking individuals who have chosen public service. however, our appreciation for their service does not bring a mandate to pay them above market rates with little regard to their individual performance. in his march, 2011, report, the pay agent makes up the secretary of labor, the directors of office of management and budget, all appointed by the president, all approved by a democratic-controlled senate. this is what t

a pay cut for federal workers. and that was at a time in the early '30s when folks could argue it was not dissimilar to where we are no now and the simpson commission has been mentioned. it recommended a three-year pay freeze. this is not something that's out of the ordinary. the bowl simpson commission has been touted by folks on both sides of the aisle around this table, right here, within the last week to ten days. so i think we need to recognize that others who have looked at this issue made the outside of the bright spotlight and outside the cameras and microphones said, it's a reasonable thing to do to have a pay freeze. and remember, the pay freeze doesn't include the step increases. it simply indiana clouds the c.o.l.a., the cost of living adjustment. what our seniors have done in our country for the last two years. they have not had a c.o.l.a. increase in is social security. we all want these policies to occur, no doubt. but we need to pay for it with money that we have, not money that we don't have. i yie

are federal workers have already had a two-year pay freeze. -- our federal workers have already had a two-year pay freeze. >> thank you. >> i am going to ask you to discuss this. i do not think we should only ask those who had a higher percentage of federal employees to carry the entire loan. this is an issue that affects all of us and all of the country. there are federal employees working everywhere. i think what he has said is not at all parochial. what chris van hollen is going to say is not at all parochial. is this something that is national. -- it is something that is national. i want to point out that the three issues we are discussing today basically hit middle income tax payers. there are a few exceptions. i suppose there are some federal employees that would not be classified as middle income. there are very few. for the bulk, and they are very much middle income taxpayers and middle-class families. when we talk about health care and pension benefits for the federal employees, and the benefits have helped them become an important part of this country. all three of these ite

when you look at the federal workforce, you find that 25% of the federal workforce are veterans. veterans. private sector is about 8%. we all talk about doing right for the veterans. let's take a look at those who are working for the federal government and make sure that we don't treat them unfairly. mr. chairman, you put on the schedule the pay freeze, but i have to point out that the house bill came over to us with others for the federal workforce including significant changes in their retirement calculations. the effect of all of what you put in would have a major negative impact on our federal workforce. i want to talk about fairness for one moment. i want to talk about how fair it would be to tell federal workers that yes, we are doing this payroll tax holiday to get more money in your paycheck. by the way, you will pay more than that and lose more than that through this pay freeze overtime. that's what we are telling the federal workforce. the middle income families will not get the benefit of the payroll tax holiday. that makes no sense at all from the point of view of fai

the federal government employs 2.5 million civilian workers, 1.7% of the u.s. workforce, that according to the congressional budget office. the government spent an estimated $200 billion to compensate federal civilian employees. the proposal being put forth by congressman sean duffy would extend to nonmilitary federal employees a pay freeze into the third year saving an estimated $26.2 billion. he is supporting the measure, representative chris van hol len is opposing the measure, we want to know what you think about this idea. 202-626-7962. your thoughts about freezing federal pay salary for the next year, would also impact members of congress as a way to offset the budget deficit. 202-626-7962. this is "washington today." more from the director of the congressional budget office, doug elmendorf, who announced yesterday the government bull run a $1.1 trillion deficit in the next fiscal year. a slight dip but high by any measure. the budget office reporting annual deficits will remain at the $1 trillion range the next several years if the bush era tax cuts are

the federal employee. so insult the private employee -- to suggest they cannot do a good job. are you suggesting the security at san francisco airport, the largest airport that has a private contractor is less than any other airport? >> absolutely not. >> would you allow that to be the case? >> absolutely not. if they didn't do the job, we would seek another company or other options. >> i don't understand why we have to sit here and suggest if you have a private employee that private employee is less than a public employee. frankly, we ought to federalize the entire american workforce and have 138 million people working for the federal government if that happens to be the case. i know you opposed the proposition that was in the law but you have said you will work to enforce that chl i know from your record you will do that. >> absolutely. >> i just hope you will not add any things like clear and substantial advantage or whatever else you would come up with to undo the intent of congress as you suggest we'r

the federal government. each year the government spends $500 billion on federal contracts, but only 20% is going to small firms. small businesses create two out of every three new jobs. so for us to grow the economy we have to give small businesses a bigger slice of the federal contracting pie. today, i am introducing the building better business partnerships act. this bill will help small firms break into federal contracting by making it easier for them to join mentor protege programs. these programs partner small businesses with companies already contracting with government. it gives small firms a foot in the door so they can navigate the federal process, get experience on a contract and eventually win a federal job of their own and that means more work and a new customer for small businesses everywhere. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition? >> -- ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my rem

the federal constitution limits the powers of the federal government. under those limitations. so there is a tenth amendment issue about what the constitution permits the federal government to do in terms of imposing nationwide mandate like they did. secondly, the mandate we put in place here in massachusetts was intended to address a peculiar issue to massachusetts, which was a very small but stubborn group of uninsured people who could afford to buy insurance on their own. but they were not doing that. so when they got sick or they broke a leg or had a heart attack, they would be going to a hospital knowing that their healthcare would be paid by the taxpayers. what romney said was no more free ride. there is an important principle of personal responsibility at stake in what was happening here in massachusetts. so, we require people to step up and take responsibility for their healthcare. it worked for us. but again, what works in massachusetts may not work in a state which has a larger number of uninsured. it wouldn't work in texas for instance, where

care or really why should you not care we'll tell you and as more economists come out saying the federal reserve is making a big mistake if it sticks to keeping interest rates near zero for the next three years will look at how the that even got here it's evolution from passive to central planner buyer of junk war enabler and firefighter of the economic fires it creates itself will speak to g. edward griffin who's been opposing the fed since the sixty's let's get to today's capital account. ok before we really get into the meat today i just want to touch on this because obama today unveiled his two thousand and thirteen budget he gave a speech at a community college in northern virginia there is to tout it to manage expectations take a listen. we can restore an economy where everybody gets a fair shot everybody does their fair share everybody plays by the same set of rules from washington to wall street to main street. great so the new budget is a solution to america's rising inequality to wall street and corporate welfare and big business is the advantage over the small entrepreneur i'v

the federal government is always expected to be better than. we have the responsibility of millions of americans all across this nation. they look to us, this great nation, who uses the terminology great, to be great, and to be excellent. the reality is this security incidents have occurred at both airports with privatised and federalized screeners. under the watch of privatised screeners at san francisco international airport, a woman pushed through a closed checkpoint lane, boarded a plane and flew to baltimore without ever being screened. the statute established in the spp did not endeavor to micromanage tsa's decision to include or exclude an airport from participation. it was to show a sense of openness 16 is enough. rather it gave proper defrns to the administrator's judgment by stating he may approve an applicant application. i know have this very hearing we'll see the potential amendments coming in. mr. administrator trying to demand and saying that you shall just as we have seen in the language of the faa bill. that's unfortunate. i'm

selling off excess federal assets and making sure that the federal government doesn't own or have to maintain or operate more than we need to is a small but critical piece of the overall equation. this congress has the opportunity to get it right through a deliberative process but because the majority's restricted debate on the underlying bill, i cannot support this rule and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: mr. speaker, the cost of real property the federal government, costs are very significant. most agencies do not have the intendtifics to minimize those costs. properties sit vacant and woefully underutilized, not only costing taxpayers billions of dollars but often are eye sores in local communities and -- soars in local communities and steal property away from the revenues of local communities. even so, despite the current budget climate many agencies continue to seek more space than is necessary, red

it follows the president's request to freeze federal pay for federal employees. it is consistent with house resolution and mirrors the provisions of the middle has class tax relief and job creation act of 2011, passed by this house last december. opponents of this bill will argue we have -- employees have already done more with less for the last two years. they will claim that supporters of this bill view federal employees as a cost to cut and we want to cut the budget on the backs of federal employees. i disagree with that. we have been fortunate, very fortunate throughout the years to have a very good federal work force, to have talented and hardworking individuals who have chosen public service. however, our appreciation for their service does not bring a mandate to pay them above market rates with little regard to their individual performance. in his march, 2011, report, the pay agent makes up the secretary of labor, the directors of office of management and budget, all appointed by the president, all approved by a democratic-controlled senate. this is what t

federal student aid. my amendment will prevent the federal government from reinterpreting a state's laws to require credit hour programs to convert back to clock hour programs. a state should be the final judge of its own laws and regulations. this is a necessary step to correct the department of education's interpretation of a clock hour program and will reaffirm our intent that discretion for determining clock hour programs should remain with states, crediting -- accrediting agencies and institutions. the amendment improves the underlying legislation and ensures colleges and students are protected from a harmful federal intrusion into academic affairs. i urge my colleagues to lend their support and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california rise in opposition? mr. miller: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman. this amendment is consist went this legislation

federal employees, as mr. hoyer said, are willing to do their fair share to help reduce our deficit, but stop singling them out and making -- singling them out and making them scapegoats. they had nothing to do with the meltdown on wall street and i'm sick and tired of hearing some members of congress badmouthing and belittling federal employees. if i could have an additional 30 seconds, please. mr. hoyer: 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: they are an easy political target for some, as mr. hoyer said. but it is irresponsible to denigrate their good work. these are the men and women who care for our veterans and many of our wounded soldiers. these are the people in our intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden. these are the folks at n.i.h. and elsewhere who help find treatments and cures that help prevent diseases that plague every american family. they are the folks who protect our borders. they are the folks that help run the medicare and social security system. they are the folks in the capitol

federal reserve. to cut social security and medicare, to the exclusion that many colleagues want to spend more on the military and the notion that that the federal reserve a powerful economic entity should set interest rates without regard to the unemployment is wrong. >> i thank the gentlemen. you know, i have a son that served in the marines -- >> if we are going to get into that, i responded to what you said, and you are representative of a large group that talks about entitlement and the military comes up as an after thought. >> it needs to be a grand bargain, we discussed that and i think we agree on that. and everything should be on the table, without entitlement reforms -- >> are we going to continue debate after our time. >> for three minutes you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, and welcome chairman bernanke. you know, i guess over the last 30 or 40 years i've criticized the fed on occasion but the congress deserve some criticism too. the federal reserve is a creature of the congress

when we hire a new federal employee, every new federal employee we hire, mr. speaker, when they pay out of their monthly check to the federal employee retirement system, that pension that's available to every federal government employee, that payment that they make into the pension program is counted as a credit. it's as if the more federal employees we hire, the more money we'll make for america. no. because with every year of payment into that system they get something very large out. this is not news to any business owner in america, mr. speaker. this is not news to any business owner in america. they have to do this accounting every day. you want to talk about the crooks on wall street? if wall street accounted the way the federal government does its accounting, they would in fact be crooks and they would in fact all be in jail. it's unconscionable. the rule that we pull, and we're all complicit in it, have been for years, the wool that we pull over the eyes of the american taxpayer and kudos to this budget committee and candidly to this budget chairman. c

how does this law compared to the federal law? >> this refers to what the federal law is, so it does not add. those buildings should be complied if they are renting to a small business that is open to the public. director: under the federal law, the property owner has an ongoing obligation to make sure that their property is ada accessible, so, again, just like the small business, the landlord has the choice of doing something or not doing something and still being subject to a lawsuit, and what we have seen in the lawsuits, that the property owners are also being sued, and having to do the same sort of payment outlays to the plaintiff and the lawyer, but because of how the lease is designed, then the physical structure, during the fiscal so again, under consultation and calls that we have received in our office that we have talked to many small property owners that said how come -- no, it was how come you didn't inform me of my obligation? again, looking to the city government and the local government of like informing them of wh

that's where the federal involvement came from. i think one of the problems that does occur with federal involvement in education is that you get a lot of posturing and a lot of demagoguery. this happens not only in republican administration, but also in democratic administrations. it happens not only from the white house, but members of congress who posture on educational issues so you'll end up with some congressman or senator who's acting like the national superintendent of schools and the law, the no child left behind law was proscriptive in many ways. in my opinion, it's had some contributions. it was overly proscriptive. a lot of educators complain about it. there are positive and negative features of the federal rule. most people don't agree about the local school. a good solid majority of people have a favorable opinion of their public school, thank you think they do a pretty good job. >> jan asks you to speak about the move towards common core and what you think the impact might be on nclb. >> well the -- >> what is common

well i think it's because i recognize the federal reserve for what it is instead of what it pretends to be all of the items that you mentioned just a moment ago involving criticism of the fed none of those people were challenging the the right of the fed to set interest rates or anything like that they're only disagree it meant is that they're not doing it right the implication there is if they were doing it it would be better i recognize from the very beginning that the federal reserve system shouldn't i don't even think it should exist because you see it's not a government agency it's a private banking cartel and people don't realize that it's a cartel no different than a bank i mean than an oil cartel or a peanut cartel or sugar cartel it happens to be a banking cartel and when a cartel exists it has only one function and that is to promote the best interests of the members of the cartel so when the federal reserve system says it's going to push interest rates towards zero the idea is that they're trying to stimulate the economy for you folks and for me but that's nonsense because

the average federal, average federal government's average was $75,614. which is commendable, but the average salary out there in the real world is $52,000. so, the average federal worker makes about 45% more than the average individual out there in the private sector here a half million federal employees make over $100,000. and that is actually increased 36%, increase the number of folks that make over $100,000 since the recession began. and one of the statistics that just, it's income principle to become is the is department transportation, which when the recession began had one individual whose salary was over $170,000. and now, 18 months later, 1690 individuals making over $170,000. now, they may all be appropriate compensated. however, i think when the american people look at this and they know the tightening of the belt that they've had to undergo, and what, the conversations they've had around the kitchen table, when you look at each other and say i don't how we are owing to be able to send our son or a daughter to college culture item how we can p

they may opt out of using federal screening work force. in january of 2011 based on the review of administrator, administrator pistole decided not to expand the 16 currently participating airports unless there was a clear and substantial benefits to doing so. i might add there should be a security analysis in this as well. i hope my words, substantial benefit in his testimony or questioning, we will determine that substantial benefit or clear and substantial benefit does not ignore the security ramifications. it cost the taxpayers more than using the federal screener work force. in a lot of that fact, that would be reason enough to support the administration's decision not to expand the program but the list goes on. further expansion of privatized screenings hampers the ability to push out intelligence information to front line workers and adds to inconsistency. it makes changes more complex. that means you not only have to vet the front line officers but vet the company, vet the executives of the company and vet the ownership and financia

the federal debt has gone up 43%. this is one of the reasons i never tire of telling people the problem with our nation's finances isn't the government taxes too little but that it sp spends too much. [ applause ] >> i don't know about you, but the way i see it and washington proves it can spend money more wisely than it does right now. the taxpayers have no reason to hand over another single dime in higher taxes. [ applause ] look, until washington puts a higher priority on using the money it gets on things we need, instead of blowing it on solar panel companies, the american people should tell congress it doesn't need another cent. [ applause ] and that leads to another thing the american people are reminded of over the past few years, that people should be rewarded for what they know rather than who they know. [ applause ] you remember throughout the debate over health care americans saw the white house cut deals with special interests and lawmakers that we later learned were in exchange for their votes in favor of

and federally run and federally overseen. and the hands for -- the ways in which a resolution can be reached with them is probably going to have to be at the federal level. >> so that's the headline, after mortgage settlement fannie mae and freddie mac face renewed pressure on principal reduction. and let me add women's work usa. make no mistakes we want wall street crooks in shackles. no pats on the hands. no fines, no promises to do better, shackles. diane, a democrat in st. louis, missouri. go ahead. >> caller: i'm calling concerns the lack of monitorship of the states like with the governor of wisconsin taking some of the money for his own state's budget. how is that going to be amended and who's going to monitor the state's part of that is going to go where it's supposed to. >> that's a good question. part of this agreement, and it's based upon a certain formula, depending on the size of the state and number of homes involved, but states are getting a certain amount of money in this agreement that they can use for penalt

federal benefits. federal restrictions. we are supposed to be a sanctuary city. stand up with our patients and speak up with us. please, on behalf of students and patients, stand up with us and ask the fed to butt out. thank you. >> my name is marquise. i am a member of access of love. i have seen five clubs close that i was a member to. now i do not have the ability to get my meds like a used to -- like i used to. i am going up for back surgery. i am in pain. this is the medicine that helps me get through every day. without this, if more clubs close, if more places cease to exist, if the federal crackdown continues, i am afraid that most of our city residents will vanish without this madison. please stand up for your members of your community that need this. we're depending on it. you should too. >> good evening, board of supervisors. i am a member of access of love. i want to stand in solidarity with access for safe medicine. i am troubled by the attack on the dispensaries and the patience, and the right to medical cannabis. we as americans have a right to fair

federal employees, as mr. hoyer said, are willing to do their fair share to help reduce our deficit, but stop singling them out and making -- singling them out and making them scapegoats. they had nothing to do with the meltdown on wall street and i'm sick and tired of hearing some members of congress badmouthing and belittling federal employees. if i could have an additional 30 seconds, please. mr. hoyer: 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: they are an easy political target for some, as mr. hoyer said. but it is irresponsible to denigrate their good work. these are the men and women who care for our veterans and many of our wounded soldiers. these are the people in our intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden. these are the folks at n.i.h. and elsewhere who help find treaents and cures that help prevent diseases that plague every american family. they are the folks who protect our borders. they are the folks that help run the medicare andocial security system. they are the folks in the capitol hil

does it advance the causes of finding the proper balances between federal, state and local? and does it warrant general support? across a wide spectrum, knowing full well that will every here has something that probably they would like to change in that bill, including mr. enzie and me. but the question is, does it advance the cause. of what we're trying to do and finding those proper roles and trying to provide a framework f every child in america to get a really good education so we have really good effective teachers, good leaders in schools, that we have comparability, that we even out these mr. seaton, i don't think you got my subtlety in this. savage inequalities still exist today. i'm in fairfax county. our schools have the best computers you can imagine. why don't your schools have those? there's inequality in zip codes. we have to figure out how we make sure that kids who happen to be born to -- in bad circumstances have a bad family circumstance, low income, impoverished area, maybe english language learns, maybe have a disability, maybe have a learning disability,

i think a coherent vision of the federal law recognizes that there are public goods the federal government to my mind is uniquely equipped to provide an education. one is robust and reliable transparency, both around student performance, around outlays and expenditures, and around disaggregating to ensure we have an x-ray on how well kids everywhere of all kinds are doing. second, the federal government i think has an explicit charge to provide constitutional protections for vulnerable populations. we do this in ieda. to my mind, the 5% target spelled out in the committee bill is reasonable. jack welch, when he ran general electric used to have a mind-set that they were going to try to fire the worst 10% of employees each year. not that he knew 10% was the right number. it could have been 15. it could have been 5. he just thought 10% was a reasonable number. it strikes me that encouraging states to address those 5% each year is not unreasonable, so long again as we keep that focus on encouraging states to address it and not on trying to stipulate models through which they should address it

government puree of raising the federal government. -- the federal government. and that is exactly what the founders had in mind when the federal government got outside of the constitution. you can read a good virgin jan madison walks through that. why that is part of the goal bring suit in this case. we are the first state to get a ruling that the individual mandate was, in fact, unconstitutional. our argument was and is that the federal government with regulate commerce under article one, section eight, the commerce clause. however, they cannot compel you into commerce. and the federal government has never, ever, under the guise of regulating commerce, compelled americans to buy a product or service. that has never happened in our history. in fact, it is so historically unprecedented and when we have these questions that we lawyers call questions of first impression, there hasn't been a case like this before the supreme court because the federal government has never attempted to exercise a power like this before. we look back to the founding period to determin

mobil federal agencies including doj and the federal housing administration and finance bureau, a federal trade commission and the special inspector general all played key roles in achieving this settlements. we partner with the offices and banking regulators from across the country who have brought valuable expertise on the ground experience with those directly affected. i want to recognize the outstanding work of the justice department in our united states offices. the program serves as the watchdog of all bankruptcy operations was one of the first federal agencies to investigate abuses of homeowners in financial distress. more thanrepute 37,000 documents filed by major servicers. but they to discovery of more than 175 cases across the country. subpoenas, reviewed over 2 million documents and interviewed numerous witnesses. they have worked tirelessly to seek justice for taxpayers to foot the bill. the evidence that they compiled and the expertise they provided was essential in reaching this settlement. large-scale reviews were also conducted by hud, fha and others. our investigations r

we do not even have the name of the federal agent. he lives here with his wife and possibly to children. from what we have learned, he works for homeland security at sfo. >>mark: we are continuing to follow the latest, a federal officer shot in front of his own this morning. >>darya: the storm looks like it is moving out. is this the end of the weather? >>erica: this is certainly the tail end. drier conditions along the peninsula for the western portions of the bay area. potentially scattered showers sitting offshore. caught in the bay area and he will see down the 880 corridor, portions of the north bay are still dealing with light rain. dry conditions along the east shore freeway. we are picking up heavier rain in portions of santa rosa. the wet weather is almost out of our hair. temperatures are on the mild side with widespread '50s. as we head into the afternoon we will not warm up much. we will continue to cycladic conditions. redwood city and mounts you will struggle to make it out of the upper 50s today. sunny conditions by thu

and federal employees are getting more. benefits are 43 percent more and ph.d are a tiny fraction of the government employees. emac is a numbers person. spell it out. >> my dear friend rick unger is cherry picking the data. federal worker gets two percent higher benefits and master districts 36 higher and the real issue is benefits are driving 48 percent versus the private worker. why? federal worker gets pension and 401 and private workers only get 401 k's. that is driving the difference. what are you getting for your buck. 401 k money and that's why the numbers are much higher. >> i don't want to get too much in numbers. they get higher wages. >> rick go ahead. except they don't. if it is higher level educational. >> they are geting more in benefits. >> let me add something else. they robbery on a wage freeze. >> no, they are not on they are getting increase in their pay. >> get out of weeds for the moment. one thing that could end is the supplemental pay that goes to employees. if they retire before the age of 62 they ge

they took things away that aren't required by the federal constitution. so there's more to it than your answer. no, your hon >> no, your honor. i don't believe that the things that were put in place in romer -- in fact, i think justice kennedy said this wasn't just a repeal of the provisions that had been enacted in denver and other municipalities. and he suggested if that's all it had been, it would not have been constitutionally objectionable. it went much farther than that. in going much farther, it became constitutionally objectionable. >> i didn't mean for you to stop your sentence. if i could have permission of the presiding judge here, a couple questions that i am particularly worried about. some states have not extended domestic partnership rights to homosexuals. do they have a stronger argument for a rational basis than does california? and i want to ask you that straight out because i'm trying to get you to differentiate your argument. it seems to me that your argument can be made as to rational basis if there weren't all kinds of rights already

those are all federal employees. and they are among the -- there are 423,000 federal employees who earn less than $50,000 a year. and 48% of them are women but 60% of the employees earning less than $50,000 a year are women. and they are the people who have seen their pay frozen for two years while health care and other costs are going up. mr. ellison: if i may just ask the gentlelady a question. so you mean to tell me and the american people and the speaker tonight that not only is this transportation bill proposing to cut into and basically tax federal employees' retirement benefits but they've already had a freeze on top of this? ms. schakowsky: for two years and that's about $30 billion a year in cuts. so we're talking about, they've already given up really -- us really about $60 billion from a normal increase in wages, just to pay for the cost of things going up. and everybody knows that the costs of food and gasoline and those kinds of things are going up and still we aren't asking millionaires or they aren't,

ever-growing reach of the federal government. i saw it in my own business, saw it with my suppliers and my customers. and out of that frustration i came here. because i thought government was too big, spent too much and was far too intrusive into our economy and frankly our set. -- society. you look at this bill and it's a perfect example of the overreach of government. we've got a group of people in california who don't like production agriculture. i think that using water to grow crops, to feed the world is environmentally dangerous. and they're using a law for the endangered species law for what i would describe as an unintended purpose. they're using the law to shut down production of agriculture that they don't like and abusing a law that was created by this congress. it is wrong and it should not stand. secondly here we are in a country where the american people are asking, where are the jobs? the president says, he's doing everything he can to help create more jobs in america. well, here's the situation where we've got ten

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

multiple federal agencies including d.o.j., hud's office, federal housing administration, federal housing finance bureau, the board of governors ever the federal reserve system, the federal trade commission and special inspector generals for the troubled assets relief program all played key roles in a achieving this settlement, and we partered with the state attorneys general offices and state banking regulators from across the country who brought valuable expertise and unique on-the-ground experience with those directly affected by the foreclosure crisis to this resolution. in particular, i want to recognize the outstanding work of the justice department, united states trustees program and our united states attorneys offices. u.s. trustees program which serves as the wax off of all bankrupt court operations was one of the first federal agencies to investigate mortgage servicer abuses of homeowners in financial distress, as part of their investigation, trustees reviewed more than 37,000 documents. and took discovery in thoracros. now, these efforts were advanced by early united states att

federal employees, as mr. hoyer said, are willing to do their fair share to help reduce our deficit, but stop singling them out and making -- singling them out and making them scapegoats. they had nothing to do with the meltdown on wall street and i'm sick and tired of hearing some members of congress badmouthing and belittling federal employees. if i could have an additional 30 seconds, please. mr. hoyer: 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: they are an easy political target for some, as mr. hoyer said. but it is irresponsible to denigrate their good work. these are the men and women who care for our veterans and many of our wounded soldiers. these are the people in our intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden. these are the folks at n.i.h. and elsewhere who help find treatments and cures that help prevent diseases that plague every american family. they are the folks who protect our borders. they are the folks that help run the medicare and social security system. they are the folks in the capitol