i think the kindest thing the federal government can do for the states is to deny a single penny of federal money to bail out state minister both governments. i should also note incidentally that the five states and the greatest fiscal trouble today are among the 12 wealthy wealthiest states in the nation. any dollar they get back from washington is a fraction of the amount of money that is sent to washington. they should be able to have some of their own and be forced to do so. >> as we said, you have had this unique opportunity and i was trying to do some research as to just how unique are you? are you familiar? how many other americans that have this opportunity to serve in all three branches? perhaps that is a research project. >> i started that research project wants and as far as i know i'm the only one alive. [laughter] >> and very much so. >> i had a book of existing topographies of existing federal judges and then i got as far as by, secretary of state supreme court justice and senator. >> perhaps we have a latter-day james burns here. >> is too late. the supreme court. >> maybe no

city crisis in 1974/75 which assured by defeat, when i thought the idea of a federal bailout for new york, the finest thing the federal government can do it is the night a single penny of federal money to bailout a state or municipal government. i should also note incidentally that the five states in the greatest fiscal trouble today are among the 12 wealthiest states in the nation. any dollar they get back from washington is a fraction of the amount of money sent to washington. they should be able to handle their problems and be forced to do so. >> you have had this unique opportunity. i was trying to do some research on how unique ru? how many other americans have had the opportunity to serve in all three branches? >> i started that research project once. as far as i know i am the only one alive. >> and very much so. >> i had a book of existing biographies of existing federal judgees. then the secretary of state supreme court justice and senator. it can't possibly be that combination. >> perhaps we have a letter dated james burns here. >> too late. supreme court. >> maybe not. there is an election coming. we will see. of these

the federal government shouldn't make for them. our legislation -- operators come to us, how are you going to mitigate those threats? that is what our legislation is. >> all of these conversations tie in to the fundamental problem which is what is a material cyberrisk. unfortunately today it is just -- that information is not really widely discussed within the corporate environment. it is discussed primarily in the chief information security officer's office but it doesn't necessarily get to the very important component, the risk manager, general counsel ceo. those are really important individuals who have to make these decisions in identifying what is critical cyberrisks are. >> our legislation does not say the department of homeland security will say what cyberrisks are. it says the private sector and regulatory agencies that have responsibility for those systems should come together and make decisions about critical infrastructure or what are the performance requirements you expect cover critical infrastructure and that is a deci

however, the difference compared to the federal government is rather drastic. for example, texans face about $520 per capita in debt. per capita debt at the federal level is around $42,600 and growing, i might add, as we speak. at the same time, the average texan pays $1691 in local taxes, $1750 in state taxes but a whopping $8,916 in federal taxes. and, you know, even if you take away the 25% for national defense -- and we gladly do -- the federal tax burden is about twice the local and state tax combined. now, trust me, our citizens can do the math, and they see the difference in value between the state and the federal government. and they are really ready to regain that constitutional balance. last tuesday's vote totals pretty much reaffirms that for me. on november the 2nd, 2010, people push back. they pushed back against a washington establishment that is spending too much and borrowing too much, that is ignoring the constitution and, i might add, the views of our citizens. the election affirms the power of individual americans, and it actually in a powerfu

the federal government is selling assets for the treasury department paid the fdic and eventually will sell assets house that the federal reserve bank of new york such as the meeting lane fund. what type of assets are being sold? first of all, they are selling banks. despite a depository financially institution, the engines of economic growth in minority communities. many people received their mortgage loans, their car loans, their business loans, their local community banks. if more of these financial institutions were minority-owned, our communities could flourish. they are also selling a real estate. the fdic is selling all types of office buildings, apartment buildings, single-family homes and land. again, the purchase of these assets by minority entrepreneurs, resident and communities could have a significant impact on how the assets or redeployed. last been mindful of the time i would like to comment on the profession of section 342 of the dodd-frank which requires every corporation regulated by the sec to present a diversity plan annually. the measurement of both work force and

the federal employees but of the federal regulations. guest: that's a fair question. i just didn't think the president should, you know, reinforce these ideas that the federal government is totally incompetent and can't make common-seps decisions. i don't think that's true. nor do i think the president putting freezes or freezing federal benefits -- it kind of enforces this idea that federal employees are over-paid, and i don't agree with that either. so i would like our president to come out more forcefully and address the arguments that we can get along better without government programs and that federal employees have to take not just federal but state, county employees, public employees across the board, have to take huge cuts. that this is somehow in the interest of our country and going to cure the deficit. host: john cage is the president of the federation of government employees. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for being with -- thank you for having me. . >> congrressmen patrick mchenry, a republican. >> there is a lot of concern about the position that states find themselves in right now with their deficit and their debt. i am curious about whet

i think the kindest thing the federal government can do for the states is to deny a single penny of federalmoney to bail out state minister both governments. i should also note incidentally that the five states and the greatest fiscal trouble today are among the 12 wealthy wealthiest states in the nation. any dollar they get back from washington is a fraction of the amount of money that is sent to washington. they should be able to have some of their own and be forced to do so. >> as we said, you have had this unique opportunity and i was trying to do some research as to just how unique are you? are you familiar? how many other americans that have this opportunity to serve in all three branches? perhaps that is a research project. >> i started that research project wants and as far as i know i'm the only one alive. [laughter] >> and very much so. >> i had a book of existing topographies of existing federal judges and then i got as far as by, secretary of state supreme court justice and senator. >> perhaps we have a latter-day james burns here. >> is too late. the supreme court. >> maybe not

government has is the size of the federal government. any big industry has waste, fraud and abuse, and that's is one of the reasons why if we could coordinate and work with local government, that's why the old cliche the government spends closest to the people. it's not because they're better or smarter. it's because they don't have the problem of size in a wrun size fits all issue and -- one-size-fits-all issue. you are talking about entitlements. this is an area in which creativity will be the most important element and some things especially with the cost of medicare are driven by one-size-fits-all federal mandates and federal decisions when allowing creativity could help us solve the problem. i want to say one thing too when you talk about the general defense is so significant. it's not because we are funding for the defense of the america today. the decisions we make, the plans we make for defense today will not come to fruition for another 10 to 15 years. and indeed, indeed the ability for us -- indeed the ability for us to have dip

one of the points he makes and this is -- i talk a little bit about it tonight, the federal government has to incentivize all of this. in other words, i use the example with the drug companies that the federal government by doing some research on new drugs can incentivize the drug companies in my district to do more, create more jobs. there's also an educational component to it as well. we need to do more in terms of education. it's no surprise that in the middle of this pharmaceutical industry in my district sits ruckers university. -- sits rutgers university. a lot of stimulus money went to rutgers to do r&d that's taken up by the drug industry. it's part of the whole package, i'm very excited about it and i want to thank the gentleman again. mr. garamendi: thank you for joining us. ms. lee, why don't you take a minute and then i'll take a minute to wrap this up. ms. jackson lee: gmplet e. is an inherently american company so i applaud the selection that allows a creator to move forward and create jobs for all of america. i want to keep in mind that manufacturing is the employer of a

that's how much money the federal government must borrow in the financial markets therefore it's the indicator of how the federal government affects the financial markets and affects the economy. you'll also find numbers there for another number, another concept which is debt subject to limit. debt subject to limit is not something economists look at very much but it is something you will be concerned about -- i assume many of you will be concerned about over the course of the next three or four months. that is the amount of money that the federal government is allowed to borrow. it extends beyond the money that we borrow from the private circuit and from the rest of the world from the financial markets and includes the amount of debt is held within the federal government, the securities that are given to trust funds, notably the social security trust fund but there are more than a hundred trust funds within the federal government that hold special treasury securities. you take all of that debt together, the debt that economists care about which is the debt that is held privately, plu

would it be thrown on to the states and local governments that don't have any money. >> i think the federal government should cut the state and local activities. then it would up to each state how they want to fund these programs. the federal government spends $60 billion in k-12 education. federal involvement hasn't helped american students or test scores. canada has no federal department of education. their kids do much better on international tests than do american kids. i don't think federal involvement in these local activities is the answer. >> brown: it's partly economics and partly politics here of course inescapably. when you get to the list that you've both been talking about, what happens politically? isn't that always somebody's sacred cow or somebody... some representative represents these. >> you're absolutely right. every single federal spending program has a special interest group that supports it. there is some heavy lifting involved in spending cuts. i wish the republicans would come out and give us more specifics. so far as we've seen republican leaders have been very shy

the birth rate provision. but can they do so? that brings up another interesting but -- that is federalism. the relationship between the federal government and the state. the constitution is pretty clear the federal government is going to be responsible for laws relating to naturalization. and toward the province of the federal government. what are the states doing to get involved in this? we begin with arizona. a border state which is the place through which enormous amount of illegal immigration across the mexican border taking place. arizona has been under siege. the legislature passed the law which empowered the police to make stops to detain people suspected of the united states illegally. this again becomes a constitutional question. just one of many that are going to be the subject of debate during the 112th congress. it is enormously exciting time to be here and particularly to focus on issues that have not been very widely debated including just what is the proper scope of the federal government. the big debate in 1788 about whether we should have a constitution. the people who favor the constitution won. we have a constitution.

the federal government that is the fbi and the federal prosecutors basically brought judge lackie again and insist that he get into the case. the judge goes through a series of like the only character lies not in the book but here as balducci sometimes doesn't even return his calls. finally come into timber, six months after the first approached by balducci, judge lackie says i am in a blind eye have created a hunt for myself. if i do a favor for scruggs to you think he would help me? and balducci sort of britain's because balducci is trying to ingratiate himself with scruggs. he and patterson have formed this new firm and they are desperate to latch onto his thoughts. so balducci commits and says i'm sure that he would. the judge makes another call and this is the fbi and federal government basically tell them what to say. you've got to ask for money and insure scruggs's name is there. the judge does that in a series of phone calls, asks for $40,000. balducci produces the case, brings it down to the judge finally in late september, six months after the first, and at that point clearly

the proper role of government in the society. there are those who believe in the so-called limited government that says that the only role for the federal government is to provide national defense to be if you look around the world and look at nations where only the only effect of the surface of the national government is to provide strong military, i think most of us would agree that we would not want to live in such a nation and you don't have to think very hard to come up with one of the six nichols -- examples. we should be clear on how we find ourselves of the skyrocketing debt. the policy of the blindly cutting taxes, shipping services to the private-sector began to evaluate and demonizing persons and give their lives to public service in the civilian sector. that policy is bankrupt. and this worship of the private marketplace the wood is a panacea for all that ails our economy and society is just all we -- folly. anyone that has taken a course in economics notice there is such a thing as market failure and market failure requires government intervention. competitive markets and pure competition do not always lead to the best soci

government and the states. the constitution is pretty clear that the federal government is responsible for laws relating to naturalization. in fact, it has always been considered the exclusive province of the federal government. what are the states doing to get involved in this? well, it all began with arizona, eight border state which had been a place where an enormous amount of immigration has taken place. arizona has been under siege really. the state legislature plat -- passed a law which empowered police to make stops and detain people expected of been in the united states -- suspected of being in the united states illegally. this, again, becomes a constitutional question, and one of many that will be the subject of debate during the 112th congress. it really is an enormously exciting time to be here, and particularly to focus on issues that have not been widely debated, including what is the proper scope of the federal government? we had a debate in 1787, 1788, about whether or not we should have a constitution. the people who favored the constitution won. they got a constitution in large measure because of the sup

the federal government has been unwilling to take them. they will have to lay people off and cut spending. that will exacerbate the economic problems we face. so right now the economy is growing at a modest pace. most of the forecasts are for growth rate of maybe 3%. but we have to grow at about 2.5% just to keep steady with the growth of the labor force. we have to grow a lot faster if we want to dip into this pool of unemployed people. the fact that states are cutting back on their spending and laying people off is just going to make it much harder to get out of the hole that we are in economically. host: we are having a discussion about the economy with two economists from different perspectives. matthew mitchell is based at george mason university's mercatus center. isabel sawhill is at brookings institute. the next call is from connecticut. this is charles, a caller: republican good morning. this is perhaps not germane, but it is something that has aggravated me for ages. i would like to have the government refer not to a budget, becau

tribes of proven that they can do more with less money than the federal government, primarily because of the type of organizations that we have. we're not talking about a lot of federal bureaucratic employees. not that that's bad, but if were talking about shrinking the size of government, then, you know, we are talking about allowing the tribes to truly govern their own affairs. and so, we think that's good. now, doing away with the bureau of indian affairs, i won't even go there. thank you. anyone else? >> mr. president, just want to once again welcome all of our web watchers right now. we have over 500 people now watch in on the web and we have two questions that have come from there, president, would like to ask you. one, how is ncai implementing the tribal law and order? and then i'll ask the other. >> that's a great question. the tribal law and order act modernizes and proves our jurisdictional authorities within indian country. one of the first things we did once that law was given time into law by the president was to coordinate a meeting between the folks from the justice dep

that is unfortunately not true of the federal government. crisis facing the federal government, and it is a serious threat, is not the crisis of a recession, although the recession and the things that we had to do like aiding the state of pennsylvania to get out of it increased the debt, but that rob owns that the united states government at the federal level is facing is that we are on a track that is unsustainable, not excess of the recession but excessive things we have done policywise over a great many years combined with the fact that we have an aging population and a very rapidly rising cost of medical care and case for good medical care. we wanted. we all wanted and older people consume more of it. so this is a story that everybody is familiar with because it has been true for a long time but as we project the federal budget, even as the economy recovers what you see is federal spending will grow faster than the economy can grow and revenues won't. revenues will grow at any set of tax rates if the economy grows, but the three big entit

elected to represent them, we have the opportunity here to create jobs, to increase the revenue the federal government and we can do it on american soil with american workers, paying them increasing taxes and provide the additional revenues to the federal government. >> hi, i'm for mcclatchy newspapers. on congress, what does api think congress should be doing to address climate change? >> the climate change i believe will be a secondary issue in the new congress and with the administration. clearly in the election -- the november election, the public made very clear they want the elected officials focused on one thing: jobs, jobs, jobs. i believe you see the congressional agenda coming both from democrats and republicans, focused on job creation. i believe the kind of discussion will likely be put off for another day. if it wants to be introduced as part of the energy conversation, we'll see as things begin to unfold. but i've heard announcements out of the administration and leadership in both houses senate that they expect that issue to be put on the sidelines for the time being as they center on a

the federal government will give you 24 hours but you got to get this done. hours later a federal official came to the command center and said we can't find phone-number 4 any of these barges. they didn't realize they had approved everyone of them. the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing and eventually they realized how absurd this was and said we don't have to check the vowels but they have to stay in port. we need to count how many lifejackets and fire extinguishers on every one of those boats. i said you can't do this in the bay? those are the rules. 24 hours later like i told them i went to the port myself. along the way miraculously we got a call saying great news, won't the inspection after all. they go back to work. for 24 hours that oil sat in the wetlands and unnecessarily because of bureaucracy and red tape. a last example from the oil spill. the oil was coming in to the bay. one of the most fertile fishing areas along the coast. we could get the federal government -- there were boats, scanners, people, equipment sitting, just waiting

that is the amount of money the federal government is allowed to borrow. t extends beyond the money we borrow from the private sector and rest of the world and financial markets and includes the amount of debt within the federal government, the securities that are given to trust funds, notably the social security trust fund, but there are more than 100 trust funds within the federal government that hold special treasury securities. you take all of that debt together, the debt that economists care about which is the debt that is held privately plus the debt that is held within the federal government, and you get to the debt subject to limit. we anticipate that debt subject to limit is going to come very close to the statutory debt limit sometime between march and mai. the treasury secretary wrote a letter to the congress shortly ago explaning that we anticipate that we're going to run into that debt limit, and that the congress will need to take action to raise the debt limit. i can tell you from my own experience working with this issue quite closely when t

i think that we might have 7 million or 8 million contractors that work for the federal government. twothirds of which deliver services. everything from computer program to is the analysis and consulting and all the way down the hierarchy to security panda serving food in the federal cafeteria. we have a very large work force. we have another 3 million parent folks that get their paychecks in part from the federal government under grants. those are highway construction grants, which treatment facilities, construction grants, research at universities and so on. so let's put it at 10 million their perilous at the federal civil service about 2 million or 2.1 million. and add the military and now that 14 million. if you really want to go bare, throw in the number of state and local employees that work for the federal government under un- funded mandates. we don't know how many there are, let's say that its 40 million or excuse me 4 million. now it's getting pretty large, almost as large as the manufacturing sector. federal employees are the tip of the iceberg. we don't talk much about fr

that's how much money the federal government must borrow in the financial markets therefore it's the indicator of how the federal government affects the financial markets and affects the economy. you'll also find numbers there for anothernumber, another concept which is debt subject to limit. debt subject to limit is not something economists look at very much but it is something you will be concerned about -- i assume many of you will be concerned about over the course of the next three or four months. that is the amount of money that the federal governnts allowed to borrow. it extends beyond the money that we borrow from the private circuit and fromthe rest of the world from the financial markets and includes th amount of debt is held within the federal government, the securities that are given to trust funds, notably the social secury trust fund but there are more than a hundred trust funds within the federal government that hold special treasury securities. you take all of that debt together, the debt that economts care about which is the debt that is held privately, plus the debt

the smart people to work. the government you don't want to do high level stuff anymore and want it a service only government, and people, especially if they work for the federal government live in this b.c. area which is extremely expensive. they are already taking major cuts by working for the government because maybe they really want to do research, but to go across the board and just freeze pay or say you don't need highly paid workers, i think it's the downside of that is you will lose a lot of educated people that have a lot of offer. i mean, for instance, hiv drugs were discovered, a lot of cancer research. a lot of things go on here and to say government is still efficient, you don't need highly skilled workers. i think that's totally untrue. >> host: thank you. last comments. >> guest: she's right. that speaks to a deliberative approach to dealing with the size of government. we can't take the blunt ax to it, and it speaks to the issue of compensation variation by level. we ought to be paying doctors and researchers at nih more. maybe we pay others less, maybe we pay still others the same. you can't wield the blunt ax here and cut jobs across the boar

population, an effort to make sure the county receives adequate federal support for the homeless and programs. i mentioned a ten-year plan to end homelessness. the federal governmentat began in 2000, here we are 11 years later and that program didn't work. the homeless program provides case management, abuse treatment, employment training and the most important aspect of all this according to the homeless, the folks at the homeless services permanent housing. now, the estimate right now is about 4,000 people on any given night are homeless in contra costa county. all told in the course of year 15,000 people one point or another are homeless for a significant period of time. probably 4,000 people to be counted countywide. it starts at 6:00. we're going to be hearing from someone organizing this count. that's coming up in half an hour. terry mcsweeney, abc 7 news. >> terry, thank you. president obama is traveling to wisconsin this morning to kick off his white house to main street tour. he'll push his job creation ideas that were the focal point of his state of the union last night. mark matthews has more. >> the president began by acknowledging the empty chair of a

the federal goverent and the workforce among federal employees. when you hear the president talk about reorganizing the government, what does that mean for civilian mployees? >> for o.s this is not a -- for these organizations it is not a federal term. i think it is important for federal employees as the actual functions that the government performs. and if they can be done more efficiently, we are all for it. i hope the president, changing poxes at the top is not that important. getting down to the mechanics of government, i think, is important. i didn't like the president's remark about salmon. i thought that was a gratuitous slam at federal employees. we don't really set up the way government runs. this is done by congress and the executive branch. and i really don't think h analogy was actually true. but there have been many good examples of reorganization. i would like to go into one with the d.a. if i could. host: certainly. guest: back in the 1970's and 1980's the v.a. had not such a good reputation. they did an internal reorganization, which i think was quite remarkable. they put more accountability on their regions, they modernized, they

we can help do that if we have the federal government help subsidize a% of the wage of every new jobt a corporation puts on its books. tavis: but we failed those banks out without strings attached. now the president called them begging them to invest some of that money into the economy. what suggests there is any way employment -- unemployment will get anywhere near 7%? >> he still has policy tools like the one with the wage subsidy that could make that happen. it will be a tall order, but he could do that. if the companies feel enough confidence and certainty of what the terrain will be, and that is one of the values of the tax agreement is, that they could use some of that money to hire people back. i think you will find a lot of companies who have dropped their productivity because they cut their work force so much. if they hire more people they will make more money and more people will be employed. tavis: one thing the polls indicate is that americans have had some issue with president obama on the jobs front, they have never turned against him personally. because of that, you se

we're expecting abig announcement from the federal government that could change what your child puts on his or her school lunch tray. >> the big announcement is am could go down this morning just weeks after president obama signed into law a child nutrition bill that would help schools pay for healthier foods which often times are more expensive. the federal government says one-third of children in adolescence, 25 million kids are obese or overweight. the u.s. department of agriculture wants to raise the nutrition standards in school lunches for the first time in 15 years as you mentioned. the new rule would limit sodium, calories and those beloved french fries and offer more fruits and vegetables. the rule would apply to kids who eat breakfast at school. now, here are some of the requirements. decrease the amount of statuty vegetables such as potatoes, corn and green peas to just one cup a week. reduce sodium in meals. minimize trans fats. serve only 1% or fat tree milk. flavored milk is fine only if it's fat free and increase whole grains substantially. these rules do not apply to w

guest: well the first government should be a model employer. unions and the federalare a little different than the unions in the private sector. we can't strike, we can't take aany type of work stoppage or work actions, and also, you don't have to be a union member. yet the union has to nonmembers as well as members in the federal government. and i think we do a lot of good business to assure that promotion is fair, to assure that people have some due process, that the civil service remains fair and nonpartisan. i think we provide a voice of work that is very valuable in having an efficient federal government in hughes operations are fair. our diversity in the federal government, i think, in the unions has something to say about the success of that is outstanding. i believe, of course it's a bias opinion, that the unions do a very nice job in the federal sector, and i think that many employees appreciate it. host: daielle is next joining us from brooklyn, new york, and she is a federal worker. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment maybe. it is regardin

there are four major housing and banking activities that affect the federal budget to varying degrees, the federal government obligations to fannie mae and freddie mac, premiums paid by share payments and the federal paymentss emissions of to the treasury. can you explain to me what the budget associated with each of the entities -- these entities actually reflect? are we treating these different aspects differently in our budget analysis? >> the answer to the last part of the question is yes. they are treated differently. the federal budget is primarily a cash flow accounting. money coming in and going out. 20 years ago, there were some changes made to try to better reflect the true cost of some of the government postal financial activities. in fact, that methodology -- 20 years ago, there were some changes made to try to reflect the true cost of some of the government's financial activities. the particular part of the government's activities you mentioned were put in place by different budgetary treatment. t.a.r.p. was put in place to treat it not with government reform basis. we have done that. fannie mae

requires financial institutions and other corporations, when they're doing business with the federal government to submit data to them regarding not only the diversity of their employees but the board and what have you be the contracting. and as already pointed out earlier with the federal government we've been trying to get data from the department of defense for the past two years to find out what percent of their contracts are minority to minority and women-owned businesses. right now the data we have is i guessie says less than 1% for latinos, asian owned business. so we think this data is critical. and we have taken it on ourselves to make certain that the banking industry as well as corporations who have contracts with the federal government adhere to that piece of the legislation. >> i want to ask you, why are the numbers so low as he cited and secondly why is the data not better? he was saying we need more data. >> i can't speak to the first issue. i don't know the numbers right now. i know that we have a strong commitment, the president has a strong commitment. i know secretary geithne

as the federal government contemplates fundamental changes in the priorities of government. excuse me. as the federal government contemplates these changes, indian country offers a bold opportunity. investing in self-reliant indian nations is not only the constitutional and morally right thing to do. indian nations offer a great untapped source of economic opportunity for all americans. it's the smart thing to do. earlier this month when the u.s. house of representatives read a loud the u.s. constitution. america's founders recognized the inherent sovereignty of indian tribes and the special relationship between tribes and the federal government. and they affirmed it. they affirmed it by if you got into words in our constitution. like all american people we are afforded basic constitutional rights. moreover, we carry a special recognition that tribes are inherently sovereign nations within a nation. that tribes as stated in article 1 section 8 hold the same status as foreign nations and the states. these basic rights, these inherent rights are what we seek together to bring t

the committee was instrumental in having some kind of allowable, under the federal government regulations, evaluations. the pattern -- there was a huge list of providers. the quality of the services was enormously variable from the people who were reported by title 1 directors to take the money and never provide any service for kids, which was apparently allowable under those regulations, to the people that we on the time were pretty much only contract in with, so widely recognized organizations. princeton review, etc.. these contracts here, and also the administratively approved ones, i saw, had a response numbers. one provider with for students or three students -- four students or three students. we at the budget committee said we would ask the curriculum committee to take this up, but i really want the board to be involved in a discussion about the process that we are now using, how we assess the effectiveness, how week -- for instance, one of the things i learned at the committee, years ago, was that there was a pop -- and i should say at least that there is a lot of -- you know, the

what should the federal government be doing, in your view, when it comes to technology security? >> i think the federal government has to look at security in terms of the consumer, but security in terms of intellectual property and in terms of companies. there is a lot of work left to be done in terms of both. particularly when you look at some of the piracy issues that are happening overseas. it costs are sector a lot of money when you look at what is happening in some countries, particularly in asia, systematically taking information. in terms of security in the united states, we have to make more investment in this. if our system crashes, if suddenly we don't have secure networks, i think we have to do more in terms of making sure there is security for the emergency management folks. a whole set of issues we have to focus on. >> given the nature of technology, how much of this just offset the border? aren't we getting to the point where complete international cooperation is necessary? >> we have to increasingly have, what -- we have to increasingly have cooperation across the w

and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation articulated by james madison and federalist 45 that is one of limited government anality. i know we have smart people here. i know we have those in the administration who believe that this is totally constitutional. but frankly, mr. speaker, my bet goes with james madison. he did say that the powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government are few and defined. he did say that the federal government will be exercising their responsibilities principally on external objects as war, peace negotiations and foreign commerce and the states would do much else. then we have the 10th amendment, later adopted. which said again that this is a government of limited, imnumerated powers. now either the 10th amendment means something or it means nothing and either james madison knows what he was talking about or he does not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. spe

what mayors and the federal government can do together to get jobs created in this country? >> well, i think one of the things that is not a secret is that the president is reaching out to the business community and working with them there's an enormous amount of private capital on the sidelines today about $1.8 trillion of money that's held by corporations that is not going into helping create jobs for people and i think this administration is working very hard to cajole the private sector and to pushing some of that money out, including the recent tax compromise that was approved in the lame-duck session. so those are the types of efforts i think are going to create a climate in washington that give the business community certainty around creating jobs. i think the president is very clear that jobs is the number one focus for this administration and they're going to continue working through ways to do that. again today i think he was listening at least as much as he was talking about how we think we can push the jobs agenda forward and he got lots of ideas from people. >> w

the tower project is 100% reimbursable from the federal government, but portions from the term of one project will be the responsibility of the airport. that is included in the budget. the contract is the result of a competitive rfp process with howard, needles, tammen & bergendoff scoring the highest. the budget analyst has recommended approval. supervisor avalos: mr. rose, if you want to comment on item six. >> as our report points out, although this was a competitive proposal, it was not based on cost. however, we concur with the department, because this was a professional services contract, it was based on experience and qualifications. there is also, as the engine, a contingency amount of 13.9%, about $1.6 million. that is how we get to the $13 million, plus the contingency. we also point out this is for a term of according to the agreement for up to 10 years. this specific agreement is for a term of 1095 days, approximately three years. finally, regarding the cost, when the airport submitted this in the rfp, they estimated the cost would be $9 million. it turns out, excluding co

that is unfortunately not true of the federal government. isis facing the federal government and it is a serious threat is not the crisis of a recession, although the recession and the things we have to do, like it in the state of pennsylvania to get out of it increase the debt. but the problem that the united states government is seizing is that we are on a track that is unsustainable, not because of the recession, but because it thinks we have done policy wise over a great many years, combined with the fact that we have an aging population and a very rapidly rising cost of medical care and case for good medical care. we want it. we all wanted. and older people consume more of it. so this is the story everybody's familiar with it because it's true for a long time. if you project the federal budget, even if the economy recovers, what you see as federal spending will grow faster than the economy can grow and revenue while. revenues will grow at any set of tax rate about as fast as the economy grows. but the three big entitlement programs drivi

and the federal government would change it on a yearly basis. such an interpretation would render the nation articulated by james madison and federalist 45 that is one of limited government anality. i know we have smart people here. i know we have those in the administration who believe that this is totally constitutional. but frankly, mr. speaker, my bet goes with james madison. he did say that the powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government are few and defined. he did say that the federal government will be exercising their responsibilities principally on external objects as war, peace negotiations and foreign commerce and the states would do much else. then we have the 10th amendment, later adopted. which said again that this is a government of limited, imnumerated powers. now either the 10th amendment means something or it means nothing and either james madison knows what he was talking about or he does not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. spe

today that will make several prescription drugs a little safer to take. >>> this morning the federal government announced sweeping chance for school lunchings nationwide. the first federal overhaul for nutrition in 15 years. elizabeth mass re. >> the academyy has already adapted the healthier food of the future. >> here's an sold menu. bread and beef pattie on a roll with fruit popsicle and low fat milk. now the new. baked fish nuggets, whole wheat rolls, mashed potatoes, broccoli, peaches and skim milk. >> the more we can reinforce the right set of choices the geater chance we will get a handle on obesity. >> reduce saturated fats sugar and sodium. for first time set maxim calolorie counts in addition to minimum ones. >> this doesn't mean we are going to eliminate treats. not at all. but it is a circumstancewhere treats have a special meaning, a special occasion. >> the usda says children consume more than half their calories at school. >> schoo are supposed to set an example, example of many, many values of society and one ought to be eating well. >> if they eat well there, it's a lesson they

supposed to promote general welfare, but it specifically, because the only government that we have that can defend our country is the federal government. it is the primary function of the federal government in our preamble to the united states, provide for the national defense. we were spending 7.4% of g.d.p. in 1965, which has dropped down to not quite 5% of g.d.p. and we have the problem now with two wars, with all our equipment aging, so we're having a whole lot of trouble trying to stay competitive, particularly with china and a lot of their new developments because the entitlements are just going nuts. so the problem is that we're going to have to take a look at entitlements, not just social security, medicare and medicaid but there are other ones too, food stamps, public housing, you also have the debt service. all of this, when you put it together, is using almost all the money we have coming in in a given year. that means we need to get serious about doing some cutting. once again, i'll come back to you, congressman johnson, comment on that aspect of where we are. mr. johnson: you hit the nail on the head again. nat