those medicaid long-term care dollars at the average of federal states are more towards nursing home care. so we need to flip that. and if -- you're right. it would be a win-win-win situation for all of us. i thank the senator for his leadership one this issue. wows white house imr. whitehouss been frustrating and bedeviling to run up against the inability to project these savings in a way that would allow us to what we call in washington "score" them and get budget credit for them. but i would say that even though they have that difficulty, there are some very, very serious organizations that project the very significant savings of this kind that i've mentioned -- $the 1 trillion savings -- are possible.

are possible. the president's own council of economic advisors some years ago estimated that we could do savings of $700 billion a year without affecting the quality of care in any way for the worse. the national institutes of medicine have made several regular projections on this. the most recent one is at $75 $750 billion a year. well, the institutes of medicine are pretty serious folks and they're entitled to respect when they say that we can have those kind of savings. rand corporation -- a lot of people know a lot about. it's a very, very expert organization. they actually have done two things. they've looked at what we can snaif health care -- save in health care and then they've looked at what we can save in health care plus an additional bit for dealing with waste and fraud. and they gave ranges for the two. the midpoint of the range for savings is about $730 billion. and if you add their suggestions on waste and fraud, the midpoint of their range goes to about

$910 billion a year. and the lewen group, which is another respected think-tank that looks at health care issues, some time ago wrote a piece with george bush's former treasury secretary and they said it was a trillion dollars. so is it $700 billion a year? is it $750 billion a year? is it somewhere between $730 billion and $910 billion a year depending on how you score the waste and fraud? is it a trillion dollars a year? either way, i'll take it. those are big numbers. and wherever it falls in that range, we should be energetically fighting for it. and i'll close with the request that i always make in these speeches and this is a request to the president and to his administration and that is to

inspire us. set a bold national target. sure, c.b.o. and o.m.b. and our actuarial and accounting organizations can't predict what these savings are going to be, but by gosh, the president can direct his administration to target a savings goal and to go after it. and i think that if the president were to set a hard date and dollar target for delivery system savings in -- a couple years out. give us a chance to get to work and do that. that would make a big difference. and the example that i use is of president kennedy. back in 1961, when it looked like we were losing the space race to the soviet union, president kennedy declared that within 10 years -- he put a date on it -- he would put a man on

the moon and bring him back safely. a hard target, something specific that you would know whether it was achieved or it wasn't achieved. the message was clear. the mission that was outlined was clear. and the result was a vast mobilization of private and public resources to achieve that purpose. it is not enough to talk about bending the health care cost curve. that catch phrase should be jettisoned and discarded. we should have a hard date and dollar figure and that should be a target that the entire administration aims toward. had president kennedy given that speech back in 1961 and declared as his purpose to bend the curve of space exploration, i very much doubt we would have put that man on the moon within 10 years. it was his exercise of presidential leadership ahead of what the scientists knew could

be done but with confidence and faith in our ability to achieve big things, it was that challenge that put the executive branch of government into focus to achieve exactly what he had directed. we can do the same with health care. we should do the same with health care. there's no downside to it because this is a win-win area, as i discussed with senator cantwell. and so on that note, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to commend -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quarks. mr. blumenthal: i apologize, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i ask my colleague from rhode island to stay on the floor for just a couple of minutes because

i wanted to thank him for the very erudite and eloquent explanation that he has just given for why our focus should be so aggressively and unrelentingly on the tremendous opportunities for saving health care costs and raising health care quality at the same time. and i'm very proud to have joined him and others of our colleagues in a task force or group that is seeking commonsense solutions to lower the costs of health care and at the same time increase its efficiency and quality. the two go together. the phenomenon that he just discussed of reducing readmissions to hospitals once patients are discharged also means that the quality of those discharges and rehabilitation plans and handoffs to primary physicians and suffering and

pain to those individuals, patients is reduced. and that is just in microchasm just one example of how this goal can be accomplished. we are late in this year and we have no real time remaining before the end of that year to do legislatively the kinds of reforms that will help advance this ball. but the attention that we need to devote to this issue is clearly beyond this year and beyond the next year. we are making progress. the graphs show it. but there is so much more progress to be made in extending life spans and quality of life as well as reducing the costs of health care and making sure that

we seize this historic moment to show the rest of the world that we can do better and that we will do better in providing health care delivery. the cause of health care delivery reform is one that cries out for a focused effort involving both branches of our government, executive and legislative, and both parties as well as both houses of this legislature. and i think that the kind of focus given by senators cantwell and white house so penetratingly and powerfully today is the kind of focus that we should mainta maintain. i hope in the days or months ahead that we will devote more attention coming to the floor, doing events in our states, making sure in meetings that the administration is aware of our

concern and i look forward to continuing that effort in that time ahead. and again i want to thank my colleague, senator whitehouse, as well as others, like senator schumer and my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, as well as senator cantwell for that kind of effort that they are devoting. and i'm very proud to be working with them. mr. president, i see colleagues on the floor. it's late in the day and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. i would point out that the distinguished senator from delaware was on his way to speak and has graciously offered to defer for just a moment or two while i make my brief remarks. i rise this evening to speak briefly about the delegation chosen by president obama to represent the united states at the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2014 olympic

winter games in sochi, russia. i would also like to offer a few suggested additions to the delegation. as members know, janet napolitano, our former secretary of homeland security, will lead the u.s. delegation to the opening ceremonies on february 7. our deputy secretary of state, william burns, will lead our delegation to the closing ceremonies on february 23rd. our two delegations also will include tennis legend billy jean king, gold medalist figure skater brian boytano, gold medalist figure skater bonnie blair, silver medalist hockey player caitlin cahill and olympic gold medalist spirit skater eric hyden. these individuals are american sports figures who should be lauded for their contributions. i'm confident they will represent us well. may i suggest, with all seriousness, that this delegation could well be expanded. some have asked what message the

president might be trying to send to russia in choosing this delegation? white house press secretary jay carny asserted this morning that in the selection of this delegation we are sending the message that the united states is a diverse place. mr. president, whether we are sending a message or simply pointing to our diversity, i submit our official delegation would be enhanced by adding the following -- an american citizen of russian parentage, perhaps a russian orphan adopted and raised to adulthood by loving parents in the united states. would be a good addition to this delegation. or a syrian-american who has fled the barbaric and trench russ rule of bashar al-assad in syria. in addition, an iranian american exile from the oppressive and murderous regime in iran might make an outstanding addition to

this delegation. i would also suggest that lieutenant general keith alexander, the director of the national security agency in this administration, would be an appropriate representative also of the united states of america. so whether it is messaging that is taking place here or simply diversity, i strongly suggest that this outstanding delegation could be improved by these individuals and perhaps others. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, good evening. i'd like to talk tonight on maybe two subjects. the first of those is the budget resolution, the bipartisan -- bicameral budget resolution conference report that we have

approved here today. this is the first time in a number of years that we have actually been able to debate and find some consensus on a bipartisan blueprint for spending for the balance of this fiscal year. i want to commend senator murray, i want to commend congressman ryan for their work and for their leadership and their willingness to find the middle. my wife and i celebrate our 28th anniversary in about two weeks. actually, it's a few minutes after midnight on new year's day. one of the things i love to do when i talk to people that have been married a lot longer than we have is to ask them to -- the secret for being married a long time. and the -- i have heard all kinds of answers, hilarious answers. some are very poignant answers.

the best answer i have ever heard, mr. president, is the answers -- the two c's, the two c's. the first time someone said it to me, i said well, what are the two c's? they said communicate and compromise. communicate and compromise. and as it turns out, that is the the -- not only the secret for a long marriage between two people, but it's also the secret for a vibrant democracy. if we are to continue to thrive as a nation and to meet our responsibilities here, it will be by doing what our leaders on the budget committees have done, and that is communicate at great length with one another, develop a sense of trust with one another, an understanding of the other's views and being willing to compromise and finding our way to the middle. everyone here could find some aspect -- fault some aspect of

the agreement that was struck. i can. i know others can. but i want to commend them and thank them for the effort that went into getting this far. my colleague, the presiding officer, has heard me say once or twice in the last year or so that there are three key ingredients to making real progress, major progress on deficit reduction, and one of those is entitlement reform that saves the programs for future generations, saves money and does not savage old people or poor people. the second is tax reform that helps us lower some of the corporate rates a bit and also generates revenues through deficit reduction. and the third element is the notion of looking at everything that we do in the federal government, everything we do and ask this question -- how can we get a better result for less money or the same amount of money? and as we approach the next budget resolution next spring, the next opportunity we visit these issues on spending, domestic spending, entitlement

spending and revenues, my hope is that we will be able to make even greater progress by focusing also on those three critical elements. that's one of the things i want to say, mr. president. the other thing i'd like to talk about actually is a person that i want to talk about tonight, and that is a fellow named alejandro mayorkas. he has been nominated by the president to serve as the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. he was nominated some eight months ago. mr. president, as you may recall, i have the privilege of chairing the committee of jurisdiction over this committee, the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. we are responsible for working with the administration. we're also responsible for working with a lot of other folks in this country and outside of this country to help protect our nation's security both at home and abroad. and at the same time, we strive on our committee to make sure

that federal agencies work better, work smarter, work more efficiently with the resources that we entrust to them. we're an oversight committee. during my years of public service, i have learned that the most important ingredient in enabling organizations to work well is leadership. that is the case both in government and the private sector, in organizations large and small. part of our shared responsibility here, mr. president, is ensuring that we have effective leaders in place across our federal government. it is every senator's constitutional role to provide advice and consent on the president's nominees in a thorough and timely manner as part of the senate's confirmation process. and while we in congress hope to soon wrap up our 2013 session, it's going to be with far less to show than many of us would have liked, but at least the senate will have had an opportunity to fill some key

leadership positions across the federal government and to confirm a number of judges, in many cases in courts where they need a junk or two. and one of the roles that needs to be filled again is that of deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. now, this department, as we know, mr. president, plays a critical role in protecting our nation and its citizens from harm. whether the threat relates to terrorism from abroad to home-grown extremists to cyber attacks or natural disaster, this department and the folks who work there are on the front line for us. because the department's significant role in the security of our country, i have been very concerned, very concerned for many months about the high number of senior level vacancies at the department of homeland security. in fact, the department has been without a senate-confirmed deputy secretary since april and without a senate-confirmed secretary since, i think, late

last summer. earlier this week, we took an important step to address this problem by voting to confirm jeh johnson, a good man, as the next secretary of the department of homeland security with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. i want to thank my republican colleagues for joining us in that vote. that's good news, but we should not stop there. we need to ensure that secretary johns has a senate-confirmed leadership team in place, and that certainly includes alejandro mayorkas as his deputy. this evening, i want to take a few minutes, if i could, mr. president, to take some time to speak in strong support of the nomination of director mayorkas' nomination and explain why i am convinced, why i am convinced that he is one of the leaders that we urgently need at the department of homeland security. as of this week, more than eight months have passed since former deputy secretary jane hall loop stepped down from her post at

d.h.s., and nearly six months have passed since the president nominated mayorkas. currently the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services for that post. it's time to put in place senate-confirmed leadership in this very important deputy secretary position. the former deputy secretary, the last senate-confirmed deputy secretary for this department was a woman named jane holler. widely respected, not just by members of the committee but by many of our colleagues, democrat and republican, in the senate for her leadership, her management skills, her expertise, for her candor. she helped d.h.s. make strides in many areas. for example, in narrowing the operational and management issues identified as high risk by the government accountability office. ever since the department of homeland security was created, it has been on the high risk list every other year by g.a.o. they put it out at the beginning of every congress.

one of the leaders, if you will, in terms of getting a lot of mentions on the high risk department of the homeland security. one of the criticisms of the department for the last ten years is they never passed a financial audit. well, they are supposed to under a law passed roughly 20 years ago. little by little, every federal agency except the department of defense has become auditable and finally achieved a clean audit. and this week, we learned -- last week, rather, we learned the department of homeland security within really ten years or so finally has achieved that goal. why is that important? because of what we -- while we can't measure, we can't manage, and this is a big department spread out across the country. 22 disparate agencies. hundreds of thousands of employees. they need to be well managed, well managed. and one of jane's accomplishments, along with janet napolitano, a former secretary, was make them honorable and to get them a

clean audit. i think it's safe to say that the department needs somebody with the same kind of commitment and willingness to tackle problems head on that jane brought to the job. similarly, director mayorkas understands and is well prepared to tackle these major challenges and continue these reform efforts needed to move the department forward. director mayorkas has a distinguished record of leadership in public service. in fact, he has been confirmed by the senate not once but twice. first as u.s. attorney to the central district of california, the youngest u.s. attorney in the country at the time, and again in his current capacity as leader of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. he's also served as a partner to major u.s. law firm, o'malveney and myers. director mayorkas has a long and distinguished record in law enforcement. as a u.s. assistant attorney, he aggressively prosecuted drug

traffickers and violent criminals. as u.s. attorney, mr. mayorkas led the largest federal judicial system in the united states and was appointed by then-u.s. attorney general janet reno to serve on her advisory committee for ethics and government. moreover, while a partner, he served as chair of the firm's values committee. he was a recipient of the firm's annual values award. since his confirmation by voice vote by the senate in 2009, director mayorkas has served as director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services since 2009. he skillfully led the largest immigration system in the world. in this capacity, director mayorkas has been responsible for 18,000-member work force that maintains more than 200 offices worldwide and is supported by a $3 billion budget. director mayorkas has led the efforts to turn around an agency that was widely considered to be foundering. he has helped to put it on the

path to professionalism and to competence. his first action after being confirmed several years ago was to order a top to bottom review of the agency, identify its strengths, identify its weaknesses. the review concluded director mayorkas became concerned that citizenship and immigration services was prioritizing speed over security when it came to processing these applications. in order to make sure the national security concerns were getting proper attention, he created an entire new directorate responsible for placing visa issuance, reporting directly to him. this insured the national security professionals would have a senior at the management table and a voice in all management -- in all major decisions. director mayorkas has proved that he's an exceptional manager during his time at u.s. citizenship and immigration services. let me give you a couple of concrete examples, mr. president, of how he's made the agency more effective.

everify is a voluntary program that allows employees to check for prospective employees that are eligible to work in the united states. i was pleasantly surprised to learn that under director mayorkas' leadership, the number of employers using everify tripled from 156,000 employers in 2009 to almost a half million today. the number of people processed by everify also increased from nearly nine million to over 20 million people. that's remarkable improvement in this important program. his implementation last year of the president's deferred actions for the president's program was complicated and challenging undertaking, and it brought hundreds of thousands of people out of the shadows and has also been widely praised. within 60 days, director mayorkas managed to implement a program to process hundreds of thousands of people while ensuring that the appropriate security checks were performed.

i think it's a stunning achievement. here's something else i found interesting. just yesterday, the partnership for public service issued its rankings of the best places to work in the federal government in 2013. just yesterday. on the one hand, i was dismayed to find out the department of homeland security ranked last on their list of cabinet departments. however, however, u.s. citizenship and immigration services, led by ali mayorkas, was one of the highest ranked components within the department of homeland security, coming in i think at 76 out of some 300 federal agencies. and after mayorkas took over in 2009, employee satisfaction with senior leadership didn't drop, it increased by over 20%. we need more of that kind of proven, committed leadership at d.h.s. mr. president, everything i have

learned about director mayorkas over the past year -- and i've learned a lot -- has led me to conclude that he is an exceptional candidate to be the next deputy secretary of this department. but just don't take my word for it. director mayorkas has received glowing accolades from a number of my colleagues. he's been strongly endorsed by every single former secretary of this department, every one of them twovmen. two appointed by george w. bush and one by our current president. they've all endorsed him. he's also been endorsed by mary landrieu, who knows him well, a valued member of our committee, dianne feinstein from california, who recommended him for his positions in both as u.s. attorney out there to president cline continu clintono president obama in his current position. he has also received dozens of

letters asking us to move afford with this nomination. i want to take a minute or two to share with our colleagues what some of these distinguished people have been saying about director alejandro mayorkas. among those writing on his behalf are many individuals whom a lot of us deeply respect. i mentioned jane halu before, a previous deputy secretary. richard skinner, the last senate-confirmed department of homeland security inspector general, who was nominated by former president george w. bush. i particularly value what jay halu has to say. she was a deputy secretary herself. this is what she said. "ace come to know ale, i can tell you that he has -- he asks no more of others than he asks of himself and in leading by example, such a standard of excellence for all who consider themselves committed to public

service. in my view, homeland security could be in no better hands." that's jane halud. in one of two support letters, not one but two support letters, richard skinner, the last senate-confirmed inspector general in the department of homeland security, again a bush appointee, he sent two letters to our committee, including one earlier this month. in it he said this of ale mayorkas. he said, "during my tenure as inspector general, mr. mayorkas demonstrated that he had the wherewithal to make objective anand oftentimes very tough decisions on multiifaceted issus to the core values and missions of the department of homeland security. he is a strong leader who will be able to bring together diverse interests and collaborative efforts." that's the last senate-confirmed

inspector general for this department. the list of supporters for director mayorkas also includes other senior officials in the george w. bush administration, such as kenneth wainstein, presidenpresident bush's homelad security advisor. he said, "ale has consistently shown an ability to manage, lead people in organizations. as director of his agency, he has effectively led a large and complex organization during a time of continuing change and challenge. his marked success is a strong predictor of his performance in the deputy secretary position." again, that's what mr. w aivment nstein had to stay. i cannot agree more. we received strong letters of support from the people charged with securing our borders during the george w. bush administration, robert bonner, ralph basher, and jason ahern,

all of whom served as commissioner within the department of homeland security. "it is not merely his willing willingness to serve the public good that compels me to write this letter to support ale for his nomination. it is my belief that he has the experience, talent and skills and plain good old government to be the deputy secretary, perhaps the best the homeland security has ever had." and having succeed jane holbrooke, that's saying a mouthful. "mr. mayorkas has already served the department well and honorably in the role of director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services. mr. mayorkas continued to be -- i believe mr. mayorkas to be a public servant of integrity, with a clear and distinguished track record of leadership." and mr. ahern also one of the

past commissioners of this department, said these words: "it is my strong opinion that director mayorkas's leadership to be invaluable as d.h.s. continues to protect our country from threats of all kinds of mayorkas is the right leader to continue the development and also meet the very critical mission challenges faced every day. " just think about it. the three most senior border security officials who served under george w. bush all agree that director ale mayorkas would make an outstanding deputy secretary. they worked with him in many cases. they know him. they've seen him up close and personal. they've watched him lead. but it's not just former d.h.s. officials who feel that way. chuck canter bury says that his

professional, leadership skills and integrity make him an ideal candidate for this post. close quote. all of these individuals have spoken highly of him. they cite his integrity, commitment of excellence and his tetenacity. i'll close with this. at his confirmation hearing, director mayorkas said that his goal in life has always been to bring honor to his parents. his parents brought him to this country as a refugee from cuba when he was one years old, him and his brothers. they worked hard every day to give him and his brothers the opportunity to go to school to make a better life for themselves. like his parents, alejandro mayorkas has worked hard all of his life. he worked hard answered a worked hard in part to make them proud. i believe that he's brought great honor to them and to his country, and if confirmed would

continue do so as deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. i urge all of my colleagues to support his nomination. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me say a word about the statement just made by my colleague from delaware. senator carper and i came to congress together over 30 years ago in the house of representatives. he left for a short interlude to become governor of his state and then i recall making a telephone call to him one day saying, would you consider joining me again in the u.s. senate? and he was kind enough to do so. and the people of delaware were wise enough to elect him. i've known him for a long time. tom carper is an honorable man, a man ever integrity. this is a controversial nomination on the other side of the aisle. there are some who question the integrity of mr. mayorkas and his fitness to be chosen for this position. i've met him. he makes a very positive

impression and a very strong case that he should continue in public service. but what i respect the most is that my colleague, senator tom carper, chairman of this committee, has gone to extraordinary lengths to investigate every allegation, to answer every question, and to be there to work with the other side of the aisle, to try to resolve any problems that they have with this nomination. sadly, he's not been successful. there are still some on the other side who will oppose him. but i spoke to senator reid, the majority leader, earlier this week and said, if tom carper believes that alejandro mayorkas is an honorable man, based on his investigation, i trust tom carper. i don't believe he would ever mislead the american people, the people of delaware, or the united states senate. we should confirm this man. the allegations that have been made against him have not been substantiated and frankly should not ruin what is an extraordinary public career and an opportunity for him to

continue to serve this nation that he loves. so i thank tom carper for his leadership on this, for his integrity, and his commitment to fairness to make sure that this man is treated fairly by the united states senate. thank you very much. thank you very much, senator carper. mr. president, i ask consent that my following statement be placed in a separate place in the record from this earlier statement. the presiding officer: without objection u. mr. durbin: mr. president, many times in life we're in a doctor's office and many times in life it is a tense, worrisome moment when we're waiting for that doctor to make a diagnosis or to tell us what we need to know about ourselves or someone we love. there are great doctors, and you hope that you're in the room with one at that moment. there are great doctors that are extraordinary surgeons and great researchers but there are also great doctors who are caring, healing professionals who are there when we need them the most.

i'd like to tell a brief story about one of them from my home state of illinois who is an exceptional man, dr. russell donor, who retired in october at the age of 88. he had been a practicing family practitioner in rushville, illinois, a small farming community in central illinois, for 58 years. doc donor is the only doctor many families in rushville had ever known but the longevity of his career is only one small reason they love him. for many families in rushville and neighboring towns, he was a one-man solution to the problem of unaffordable health care. when he started practicing medicine in rushville in 1955, e charged the growing rate for an office visit -- $2. in 1970, with an apology, he had to raise his fee, his fee for an office visit was raised to $5.

and that's where it stayed for 43 years. if families couldn't pay, dr. donor would signal to his office manager, "no charge this tievmentime." in 5 years as rushville's family doctor, dr. donor never, never took a vaifntle he worked seven days a week. he started each day at the 25-bed local hospital, cull -- cruvment lbertson memorial, where he checked on every single patient. at 10:00 a.m. he was in his office to see patient. there were no appointments. dr. donor saw people in the order they aride. years back he used to see 50 patients a day. his rule washings if you were in his office by 5:00 p.m., he would see you, feign it meant working -- even if it meant working late into the night. the local pharmacy down the

block stayed open until dr. donor called to say he'd seen his last patient. that wang the end of his day. after he saw his last patient in his office, he head headed back to the os hospital. he ate dinner and went back to the hospital. he made house calls for patients who were too sick for frail to get to the office. he visited his patients in nursing homes. he took off a half day each week, thursday afternoon. first went to the local rotary lunch and then back in the day he might even consider going fishing. the only time anyone in rus rushville can remember doc donor leaving town was for a medical conference. the day he came home from the hospital, he went to tbork a few hours. heal smoring than a dedication for a commitment. dawlings. tim ward, director of the

foundation for culbertson memorial hospital said, he is the closest thing we have to a saifnlts doc donor's f staffer was just as dedicated as he was sms his sister who died in april helped him set up his practice in 1955. she helped him buy his first car so he could make house calls. she managed his office for more than 40 years. edith moore, his office snaints snarnghts died last july at the aifnlg 85 working right up to the day of her death. rose buzzby, one of two nurses, retired about a year ago in her late 80's. nurse florence boderoff worked for him for 50 years until he closed his office. she fine aolly quit her nursing career at age 90. russell donor grew p on a farm outside the little town of vermont. he said he inherited his work ethic from his parents.

he was inspired to become a doctor by a town doctor who treated him for seizures when he was a child. after he served in the army in world war ii, he went to western illinois university on the g.i. bill and in the early 1950's northwestern university in chicago where he went to medical school. he thought he was going to stay in chicago and be a cardiologist. instead, he became the heart of a small town. the longtime family doctor in rushville was retiring and persuaded dock donor to come home for a year or two to fill the void. the years stretched into decades and doc donor found that he just couldn't leave. there was always somebody who needed a helping hand. the decision to stay in a small town cost him his marriage, but that was all right. doc donor said his patients were his family. like george bailey in "it's a wonderful life," it seemed that doc donor has touched eangd richard the lives of almost everyone in his town.

he is he estimates that he has delivered 3,500 barks more than the current population of the city of rushville. among those he brought into the world are rushville's mayor and hast staff staff at the local hospital. he once climbed down in a coal mine to help rescue four men. lynn stanbah works at the hospital. her young cities her suffered seizures as beafnlt she hers doc donor coming to the house and sitting beside her sister's crib all night long to make sure she would be okay. carolyn am bro shah recalled for a local reporter that her mom became pregnant at the age of 41 and a doctor in springfield told her she was either going to surrife or the baby would survive but not both of them. she went to home to rushville in tears. then she met with doc donor. she remembers that doc told her mother, god is going to take care of us, and i'm going to

help. doc donor came to the house every day to check on carolyn's mom and often stayed to have dinner with the family. today carolyn's baby library brothebrother is a healthy midde man. doctors like doc donor are a disappearing breed. only 2% of medical students expressed an interest in general practice. in the united states we're now short about approximately 9,000 primary care doctors. the situation is not getting any better. in the next 15 years we're going to face a shortage of more than 65,000 primary care doctors. stephanie lemaster is one of that special 2%, though. stephanie grew up in rushville. as a little girl, she wanted to be a nurse, like her mom and her grandmother. at her mother's suggestion, she interviewed doc donor for a fourth grade, fourth grade school project. listening to him talk about his

love of doctoring, she changed her plans. stephanie lemaster is now a second year medical student at southern illinois university. she says -- quote -- "they tell me i should be the next dr. donor, but i'm not sure i can live up to it. he's the only one like him." end of quote. dr. donor's been recognized by state and national organizations as one of the best country doctors in america. he has been profiled in "people" magazine, featured on "the today show." he was the grand marshal of the illinois state fair parade this year. in september, the town of rushville unveiled a bronze statue of dr. donor in the town's central park. it's about 200 feet from his old office. the statue depicts dr. donor seated on a park bench with a child, listening to his heart with a stethoscope. besides doctoring, a little bit of fishing and the rotary club meeting, dr. donor also loves trees. rushville mayor kurt lunt estimates the doctor has donated thousands of trees to the town over the years.

it has been said that you have to have faith in the future to plant a tree. the trees of rushville symbolize not just doc donor's faith in the future but also his love for that community that became his family. retirement is taking some adjustment for doc donor. the last time he took a full day off, he was in the army in world war ii. he refused to let the folks of rushville hold any kind of retirement reception for him or run a story about him in the local newspaper. he said plenty of people retire every day and nobody makes any fuss over it. few people touch a town as deeply as dr. donor, dr. russell donor. he touched rushville and the other small farm towns around it in such an amazing way. you can be sure this holiday season, as they have for so many years, there are many people who count among their blessings that great dr. donor who served rushville, illinois, and america for so many decades. mr. president, i yield the floor and -- i yield the floor.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the "help" committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 316 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 316, supporting the goals and ideals of american diabetes month. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. it is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 324, submitted earlier today by senator rockefeller. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 324, expressing the sense of the senate with respect to the tragic shooting at los angeles international airport on november 1, 2013, of employees of the transportation security administration. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure?

without objection. mr. durbin: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, december 19, 2013. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to concur in the house message to accompany h.r. 3304, the national defense authorization act. further, that all time during adjournment count postcloture on the motion to concur. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, roll call votes are possible throughout the day. senators will be notified when they are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, ski that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the

senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

federal reserve chairman ben bernanke said the fed will start winding down its bond buying program in january and continue to scale it down next year if the economy stays on course. that is next on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. the federal open market committee concluded a two-hour meeting earlier today. as you know from our statement the committee decided starting next month to modestly reduce the pace at which it increasing the size of the federal reserve's balance sheet. the committee also clarified its

guidance on interest rates emphasizing the current mayors are arranged for the federal lands rate target likely will mean appropriate well past the time the unemployment rate declines below 6.5% especially if projected inflation continues to run below the committee's 2% goal. today's policy actions reflect the committee's assessment that the economy is continuing to make progress but that it also has farther to travel before conditions can be judged normal. notably despite significant fiscal headwinds the economy has been expanding at a moderate pace and the expected growth and pick up help for highly accommodative monetary policy and waning fiscal drag. the job market has continued to improve but the unemployment rate having declined further. at the same time to the recovery clearly rates far from complete with unemployment still elevated and under employment and long-term unemployment still major concerns. we have also seen ongoing declines in labor force participation slightly reflect

not only longer-term influences such as the aging of the population but also discouragement on the part of potential workers. inflation has been running below the committee's longer-run objective of 2%. the committee recognizes inflation persistently below this could pose risk to economic performance in its monitoring developments carefully for evidence that inflation will move back towards its objective overtime. this outlook is broadly can sit in with individual projections submitted in conjunction by this f-1 see participants, five or members and five board president. as always projections or condition on his or her own her own view of appropriate monetary policy. f-1 see participants generally expect economic growth to pick up somewhat over the next few years. their projections for increase in domestic cross-dress have the tendency of 2.2 to 2.3% for 2013 rising to between 2.8 m. 3.2% for next year with similar

growth estimates for 2015 and 2016. riches of an cvn employment rates which was 7% in november as continuing to declined. the central tendency to projections has an employment rate falling between six-point 3m 6.6% in the fourth quarter of 2014 and between 5.3 and 5.8% by the final quarter of 2016. meanwhile f-1 see participants continue see inflation running below are 2% checked it for a time but moving gradually back towards 2% as the economy expands. the central tennessee projections for 2013 is 0.9 to 1.0% rising to 1.4 to 1.6% for next year to between 1.7 and 2.0% in 2016. let me now return to our decision to reduce the pace of asset purchases. when we began the asset purchase program in september of 2012 we said we will would continue

purchases until the outlook or the labor and improve substantially in a context of price stability. since then we have seen meaningful community progress in the men labor market. since we began the current purchase program the economy has added 2.9 million jobs in the unemployment rate has fallen by more than one percentage point to 77% paper compares some of mr. the program many forecasters saw the unemployment rate remaining at 8% throughout 2014. recent economic indicators have increased our confidence the job market gains will continue to it for example payrolls have been increasing at a pace of about 200,000 jobs per month and the unemployment rate has fallen by 610 of a percentage point since june. with fiscal restraint likely diminishing and science of household spending is picking up expect economic growth to be strong enough to support further job gains. further f1c pertuzumab see the rest wrist around the forecast of growth and unemployment as

having become more nearly balance rather than tilted and unbearable direction as it was at the inception of the asset purchase program. as you know we have been purchasing $85 billion per month and longer-term treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities. starting in january we will be purchasing $75 million of securities among producing purchases of treasuries to mortgage-backed securities by five lien dollars each. it's important to note though that even after this reduction we will be still expanding our holdings of long-term securities at a rapid pace. we'll continue to roll over treasury securities and reinvest personal payments are the federal reserve's holdings of agency debt in mortgage-backed securities into agency mortgage-backed securities. our sizable and still increasing holdings will continue to put downward pressure on longer-term interest-rate support mortgage markets to make an initial conditions more accommodative which in turn should promote further progress in labor market and help move inflation back towards the committees objective of 2%.

our modest reduction in the pace of asset purchase reflects the committee's belief that progress towards this economic objective will be sustained. if the incoming data broadly supports the committee's outlook for unemployment and inflation we were reduced the securities purchases and further measured steps that future meetings. of course continued progress is by no means certain. consequently future adjustments to the pace of asset purchases will be delivered and dependent on incoming information. asset purchases remain a useful tool we are prepared to deploy as needed to meet our jackets. with unemployment still well above the longer run normal rate which estimated to be between 5.2 and 5.8% and with inflation continuing to run below the object of highly accommodaaccommoda tive monetary policy remains appropriate. to emphasize his commitment to provide a high-level monetary accommodation for as long as

needed the f-1 see today in hands it's forward guidance. for the past year the committee has said the current low target rate for the federal funds rate would be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above 6.5% inflation is projected to be no more than half a percentage point above two the 2% longer-run colon longer-term inflation expectations remain low. we have emphasized these numbers are thresholds and not triggers. crossing a threshold would not be automatically to it at increase in federal funds rate what indicate it's appropriate for the committee to consider whether broader economic outlook justified such an increase. with many f1c pertuzumab's projecting a 6.5% unemployment threshold will be reached by the end of 2014 the committee decided to provide additional information about how to expect his policies to evolve after the threshold is crossed. based on its assessment of current conditions and outlook

which is informed by a range of indicators including measures of market conditions financial conditions and inflation pressures it will be appropriate well past the time the unemployment rate declines. especially projected inflation continues to run below its 2% goal. in part this expectation reflects r. susman raced on a comprehensive set of indicators that there will still be a substantial amount of slack in him labor market when the unemployment rate falls to 6.5%. this continuing job market slack imposes heavy costs on the unemployed and the underemployed and their families and reduce the nation's productive capacity warranting our ongoing highly accommodative policy. as the last phrase of the enhanced guidance underscores the prospects for inflation provide another reason to keep policy accommodative. the committee is determined to avoid inflation that is too low

as well as inflation that is to hide. it anticipates keeping rates low at least until it sees inflation clearly moving back towards the 2% objective. our forward guidance is reflected in participants latest projections in the federal funds rate. although tendency project unemployment rate encompasses 6.5%, 15 of 17 f1c participants do not expect a rate increase. most ccr targets for the federal funds rate is rising modestly in 20153 do not see an increase until 2016. for all participants that projections of the federal funds rate is 65 basis points at the end of 2015 and 1.75% at the end of 2016. in summary reflecting came in at progress and an improved outlook in the job market the committee decided today to modestly reduce the monthly pace at which it is adding to the longer-term securities on its balance sheet.

if incoming information supports the expectation of further progress towards its objectives the committee is likely to reduce the pace of monthly purchases and further measured steps in future meetings. however the process will be deliberate and data dependent asset purchases are not on a set course. the sub -- f1c provided guidance stating it expects to maintain the federal funds target in its current near zero range will pass the time the unemployment rate falls below 6.5% especially if rejected inflation continues to run below 2%. the federal reserve's enhanced guidance policy intentions and increasing holdings of longer-term securities will lunch or monetary policy remains highly accommodative consistent with the pursuit of its mandated objectives of maximum employment and price stability. thank you and i will be glad to take your questions.

>> thank you. today was the first reduction in asset participants and you just said future reductions will likely occur and measured steps. can you tell us about the framework you will use to determine the size and the timing of those deductions in previous you said do you expect the program to end altogether by the middle of next year and that is -- is that still a likely scenario? >> as i said the steps we take will be data dependent. if we are making progress in terms of inflation and continued job gains and i imagine we will continue to do at each come needing a measured reduction. that would take us too late in the year and certainly not by the middle of the year. if the economy slows for some reason or we are disappointed in the outcomes we could skip a meeting or two. on the other side of things pick up we will go bit faster but my

expect patient is for similar moderate steps going forward through 2014. >> you steve liesman. when you say similar moderate steps is $10 billion in increment that people should anticipate and is equal amounts of mortgage-backed securities and treasuries also what one should anticipate and finally when you say well past the unemployment rate of 6.5% why not pick a number? why say well past? thank you. >> sure. on the first issue of $10 billion again we would take further moderate steps subsequently so that would be the general range but i want to emphasize we are going to be

data dependent. we could stop purchases and if the economy disappoints we could pick them up somewhat and if the economy is stronger. in terms of mbs versus treasures we discussed that issue. i think that the general sense of the committee was each will reductions are approximately equal to reductions which is a simpler way to do this. it obvious he doesn't make a great deal of difference in the end to how much we hold so that was going to be our strategy. on the issue of another number, the unemployment rate, let's talk first about the labor market condition. the unemployment rate is a good indicator of the labor market. it's probably the best single indicator that we have. so we were comfortable setting a 6.5 or send unemployment rate at the point at which we would begin to look at a more broad set of labor market indicators. however, precisely because we won't don't want to look just at

that once we get 6.5 we want to look at hiring vacancies participation long-term unemployment etc.. we couldn't put it in terms of another unemployment rate level specifically so i expect it will be some time past the 6.5 or send for all of the other variables we are looking at and it will line up in a way that will give us confidence that the labor market is strong enough to withstand increasing the rates. the survey economics projections that are distributed obviously that is individual assessments and not the committee's collective view but nevertheless you choose some sense of current expectations about the life of time. the sep shows the 6.5% is expected a large number of people to be released at the end of next year and 2014 and the first rate increase according to

the so-called docs chart take place in 2015 so that is the order of that magnitude that people are currently expecting. again i emphasize that it will depend on our being persuaded that across a broad range of indicators the labor market is sufficiently strong that we can begin to withdraw accommodation. >> john from "the wall street journal." mr. chairman as you well know the fed is going through transition next month. can you talk about the role that janet yellen played in formulating the policy that is laid out today and what kind of consistency the public can expect as we go into her tenure if she is confirmed with the program you are laying out today and will it carry out under her leadership? >> yes, it will. i have always spoken with janet well before she was named by the

president and i consulted closely with her on these decisions as well. she fully supports what we did today. >> robin from the financial times. mr. chairman you your inflation forecasts never get back to 2% time horizon that you covered in 2016. given that, why should we believe the fed has a symmetric inflation target any particulaparticula r why should we believe you are following an optimal policy optimal control policy as you have said in the past given that it's above the target at some point? >> these are individual estimates. we do think inflation will gradually move back to 2% and we allow for the possibility as you know in our guidance that it can go as high as 2.5%.

even though inflation has been quite low in 2013, let me give you the case to why inflation might arise. first there are special factors such as health care costs and some other things that it unusually low and might be reversed. secondly, if you look at the fundamentals for inflation including inflation expect patients whether measured by financial markets or surveys, if you look at growth which we anticipatanticipat e will be picking up in the u.s. and internationally, if you look at wages which have been growing at 2% and higher all of these things suggest inflation will gradually pick up but what i tried to emphasize in my opening remarks in which was clear in my statement is that we take this very seriously. it's not easy. inflation cannot be picked up and move to where you wanted. it requires obviously some luck and some good policy. we are very committed to making

sure inflation does not stay too low and we are continuing to monitor that ari carefully and take what action is necessary to achieve that. [inaudible] >> even under optimal control it would take a while. inflation is quite -- can be quite in inner shell and take and quite a bit of time to move in the responsiveness of inflation to increasing economic activity is quite low. so, particularly given an environment where we have falling oil prices and other factors contributing downward forces on inflation it's difficult to get inflation to move quickly to target that we are again committed to doing what's necessary to get inflation back to target over the next couple of years. >> craig torres from "bloomberg news." there has been a great deal of discussion in your profession about the potency of policy at

the zero boundary and to kind of bounce off rob and it's that inflation has fallen while qe3 has been in place and the economy continues to undershoot the forecast. i guess as a simple question, are you giving up? have you reached the limit of your policy tools and is there nothing more you can do? the economy is running way below the trendline that existed before the one inch of crisis. >> he everything depends on what benchmark you compare it to as you know. i said last year that monetary policy was not a panacea and they couldn't solve all of our problems. in particular it can't do anything about a slowing potential growth which appears to have happened at least to some extent trade it can't do much or anything about fiscal policy which is working in quite the opposite direction. given those things i think the

outcomes we have had are perhaps not as bad as you might think in particular as i mentioned many times the congressional budget office assessed the fiscal drag in 2013 as being 1.5 percentage points of growth. we are looking like we are going to get in the low twos actual growth. add those numbers together and it's a counterfactual. it's as monetary policy appears to have succeeded in offsetting a good bit of fiscal drag which we were not at all sure we could accomplish so we are certainly not giving up. we intend to maintain a highly accommodative policy. nothing we did today was intended to reduce accommodation. we will still be buying assets in the high rate and increasing our balance sheet and holding onto those assets. in our guidance day we strengthen our guidance to make sure we expect to keep rates low well beyond the point unemployment hit 6.5%.

>> peter barnes, fox business. was it a close call in the discussion today about participants and members given all you said about the outlook and annual forecasts? was there a lot of debate on whether or not to go ahead and start tapering down or wait longer or wait for more data? >> certainly it was a very important decision and we debated it quite extensively. that said the question we asked ourselves was, did we feel comfortable to say that we had met or were at least well on the way to meeting the criteria of we said when we began the program in 2012 and that was a substantial improvement to the outlook of the labor market. if you look at the king noted improvement and i mentioned figures in my opening remarks or if you look at recent numbers either on employment, unemployment and in terms of growth we see encouraging

numbers in terms of household spending her example auto purchases, fiscal drag has reduced stronger numbers internationally. i don't want to overstate the case as you look at the projections. we only assume or project a small pickup in growth going into next year but there was a pretty widespread view that there was a reasonable expectation first that the recent gains in the labor market will continue and remember we are just beginning this process now so by the time we complete this process i think it's very like they it will easily pass the hurdle of substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market. it is true that while we have passed or made significant progress on the labor market and growth hurdles there is a question about inflation which is a bit of a concern, more than a bit of concern as we indicated

in our statement. our outlook is for inflation to go back to 2% a 2% a night gave you reasons why i think that will happen but we take that very seriously as has inflation does not show signs of returning to target. we will take appropriate action. >> he hi rebecca jarvis with abc news. mr. chairman now that you've introduced tape bring into the system if the economy were to stumble again in the future would you recommend or have you discussed with your colleagues increasing bond buying in the future and have you considered any alternative measures for example more direct stimulus directly into the economy? >> what kind of direct stimulus do you have in mind? >> any type of stimulus that you would not be essentially tying it back from the banks. >> well, in terms of the legal

authorities that the federal reserve has we don't have --. >> if you could ask for it. >> were getting onto a thin civil discussion i think. i think her basic tools are asset purchases and we are allowed only to buy treasuries at agency securities and we are not allowed to buy a corporate server the things the central banks are. with interest rates near zero we can manage our forward guidance and i think that has been helpful. that has been affected. we probably could do more than that but there are limits to that as well because beyond a certain point markets may not view the longest way of guidance as being credible. we can change the interest rate we pay which is something we have talked about. the other kind of thing and the other thing that i can think of that amounts to a direct

infusion into the economy if you will is similar to the british funding for lending program where they provided cheap funding to banks of the banks could show that they had increased their lending to households are small businesses. we could in principle to something like that and look at that because we do have the discount window where we lends to banks. however, somewhat differently from what was going on in the u.k. and europe here are banks are flush with liquidity and plenty of cash on hand. they own lots of reserves of course so our sense was that there wouldn't be any take up on the program at least under the current conditions. we do not have the authority to lend direct lee to small businesses or other types of institutions and in any case i don't think right now that tight

credit in most areas is the major problem. i think what we had in many cases is firms are either not looking for credit or their balance sheets are not strong enough to pass creditworthy screenings at the bank. we do have a range of things we could do but we are already being pretty aggressive. [inaudible] >> under some circumstances, yes. >> i have a narrow question and related broader question. the now question is do the changeover and leadership play any decision? to give a preference to get it started before he left and the related question is you are a historian of monetary policy. what do you think the teachers of monetary policy will have to say about your eight years in monetary health? >> the answer to the second question is no and the answer to the second question is i will be interested to see and i hope i live long enough to read the

textbooks. what we showed, there have been two big changes, more than two but to that i would cite that the fed in the last few years. of course the result in many ways of the crisis. the first is that the federal reserve has discovered its roots in the sunset of fed was created to stabilize the financial system in times of panic. we did that and we use tools that were analogous in spirit to what the central banks have done for many hundreds of years but of course it out did to a modern financial system. the other thing that was unique about, maybe not completely unique but largely unique is that we were trying to help the economy recovers, a deep recession at a time when interest rates were were essentially zero and that required us to use other methods most prominently forward guidance and asset burgesses

neither of which is entirely new but clearly unless you put aside the depression where monetary policy was on the whole pretty passive, this is the first, one of the first examples of monetary policy taking place in the near zero interest rate environment. now we are seeing of course japan and the u.k. and other countries taking similar types of approaches and i think that will be an issue and an area that monetary historians will be interested in exploring as well as monetary theorists at and journalists. >> jason lanning with reuters. chairman bernanke today with one hand you are getting the economy something by signaling that you may keep interest rates lower for longer than we previously thought but on the other hand you are taking something away by

reducing the large-scale asset purchases. if you think that overall this is maintaining the level of monetary a commendation steady is that a sign that the decision to reduce the asset purchases is relatively less about an improved outlook for the economy and perhaps more about the concerned that the asset purchases are less effective or might be fueling bubbles? thank you. >> as i said before asset purchases are supplementary tool our main tool is interest-rate policy. the reason asset purchases are supplementary tool is it's a much less familiar tool and we have less ability to calibrate how big the effects are for example and it's also true that as the balance sheet of the federal reserve gets large managing that alan sheet exiting from that alan sheet he comes more difficult. there are concerns about effects on asset prices although i would

say that's another thing that future monetary economists will want to be looking at very carefully. so our view was in september of 2012 that we had interest rates already low. they were expected to stay low for a long time. the economy was faltering. it needed an additional boost so we brought in the asset purchase program again. the good and a specific objective which was a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market. our sense was once that intermediate objective was obtained that is when the economy had grown and was moving forward at that point we could again to wind down the secondary tool the supplementary tool and achieve essentially the same amount of accommodation using interest rates and forward guidance. and so i do want to reiterate that this is not intended to be a tightening.

we don't think it's an inflation problem or anything like that. on the one hand asset purchases are still going to be continuing. we will still be doubling our balance sheet. the total amount of we require are certainly more than was expected in september of 2012 or june of 2013 so we'll have a substantial balance sheet that will continue to hold and then we have clarified her guidance that we will be keeping rates low well past unemployment at 6.5 or send. we are trying year to a high-level accommodation. it is true that the purchases are supplementary to the interest-rate policy but again the action today is intended to keep the level of accommodation more or less the same over all and enough to push the economy forward. steve torian mcgrane, dow jones. in an earlier response you laid out the argument to explain why

the committee didn't lower the 6.5% unemployment threshold. is that conversation over? i the wall put off the table changing those thresholds? has there have been any further discussion on perhaps adding lower bound to the inflation target as well and specifically on inflation, what tools or actions could the committee take if inflation continues to run below your target or falls further? >> i think we want to make an assessment now. i wouldn't expect any changes in the very near term. we want to see how much accommodation we have and whether it's sufficient and whether the economy is continuing to grow. but, there are things we can do. we can strengthen the guidance in various ways and while the view of the committee was that

the best way forward today with was a more qualitative approach which incorporates elements both of the employment threshold and the inflation floor that further strengthening would be possible and something that is certainly not been ruled out and of course asset purchases are still there to be used. we do have tools to manage a large balance sheet. we have made a lot of roberts on that. well again while we think we can provide a high-level accommodation with a somewhat slower pace our interest rate policy, we do have other things we can do if we need to ramp up again. that bring said we are hopeful that the economy will continue to make progress and we will begin to see the whites of the eyes of the recovery for the beginning of the more normal period of economic growth.

>> some members of your staff published a paper earlier this fall arguing at times of high unemployment particularly when some of that unemployment is kelso buying into disengagement they were sent argument that monetary policy should be more aggressive in your announcing that you will do less rather than more. can you talk about why you were not erring on the side of --. >> again we are not doing less. we will see how accommodation shapes up. but while we are slowing asset purchases a bit again we expect a total balance sheet to be quite large and maintained at a large level for a long time. i expect to keep rates low for a long time and provide the regular accommodation to the

economy. i agree with your observation and the observation of the paper that you cited that there is a case for being particularly aggressive and i think we have been aggressive, to try to keep the economy growing and we are seeing progress in the labor market. i would -- the idea that we are not providing accommodation to the economy. >> mr. chairman. thank you. wyatt andrews at cbs. given the millions of dollars at the fed is put into the economy over the years gc leading reason why the economy is not created more jobs? >> we have been -- it's been a little over four years now since the recovery began, four and a half years. it's been a slow recovery. there are a number of reasons for that. of course it's something for

econometricians and historians to grapple with but a number of factors have contributed to slower growth. they include for example the observation of the financial crisis disrupting the economy and may affect innovation. new products and new firms. we had take housing busts of the construction set your course has been quite depressed for a while. we have had continuing financial disturbances in europe and elsewhere. we have had very tight on the whole except in 2009 very tight fiscal policy. people don't appreciate how tight fiscal policy has been. at this stage in the last recession which was a much milder recession state local and echo governments had hired 400,000 additional workers in the recession it. at the same point in this recovery could change in state,

local and federal government workers is minus 600,000 so it has been a million workers difference in how many people are employed at all levels of government. fiscal policy has been tight and contractionary so a lot of headwinds. all that being said we have been disappointed with the pace of growth and we don't fully understand why. some of it may just be a slower pace of underlying potential least temporarily. ..

>> it is not shocking that recovery has been this way. >> we just talked about the physical policy and that congress has passed a budget deal and they haven't done much to reduce the deficit. and it looks like they're not going to do anything until after the next presidential election. >> as always, of course i don't

-- i don't address the specific physical actions. and one deal is that relative to where we were in september and october, it is nice that there's been a bipartisan deal and it looks like it will pass both houses of congress. it is also the least directionally what i have recommended in the economy needs help to finish the recovery in place of that. and it is part of the ten-year window.

and i think that will be good for confidence and it is a good thing that they are working cooperatively in making some progress. [inaudible question] >> thank you. if you look back on the regulatory reform over the last several years, those who have yet to be finalized, what was would you have liked to have seen and the ones you would like to see before you leave? and the safeguards are in place. >> yes, this situation is safer and this includes the capital

that large banks hold. and so on the capital side, the requirements are tougher, as you know. and this includes the use of stress testing, trying to see the normal fluctuations in this includes the economy that is part of the bad financial conditions and this is a test of the base abilities in this includes the risk that was never going to the crisis. and we expect this court to be completed very soon.

and we are assisting in a resolution and we are looking at capital to back this off including wholesale funding, and we are a much stronger capital oriented drive and this includes other observers and writers are thinking about this and obviously we value your opinions. as we get these will zone and implement them, i am sure that they will make a substantial difference and it's an open question. i think we will be working on this for some time.

[inaudible conversations] >> i'm from bloomberg television. thank you for holding these conferences. one thing that that i know that you will miss his traveling to testify. and one thing that will be happening next year according to the house financial services committee is a full review of the federal reserve and the structure of the fed and the mission of the fed. and the mandate of the fed. what, if anything, can they do to structure the federal reserve and the dual mandate that might help and do you think that this is still merited. and perhaps your next news conference, we talked about the

headlands that you faced. so is there a decision with the benefit of hindsight he would do differently? one change in the decision-making process and that the colleagues have made here that would mean a difference? >> well, on the sentinel review and what i try to publish of the past eight years is to increase the transparency and the accountability of the fed and you mentioned the trips to capitol hill and i've testified many times as have my colleagues and there is a notion that the fed is not audited but they have secret books. as you well know, we have complete openness to the general

accountability office and we have the inspector general of our own in a private accounting firm that does all the books as well and they have very tough standards. we publish regular reports on all aspects of the operations and we are very open and we are by all means willing to work with congress to see if there's anything they think can be done better or in a more effective way and we are open to that. i do hope that those reviewing the central bank will recognize that central banking is an old activity. the 17th century is when the bank bank of england began operation and we know a lot about this and we know a lot of experts, a lot of them, every major country has a central bank. so we are not starting from scratch and there's a lot of people with a lot of expertise

on this. we are talking about serious people who understand these issues and who can make good suggestions and there are a range of different mandates around the world. there are single mandates and dual mandate and etc. and it is our sense that the dual mandate has served us well. in particular that the fed and they have been able to speed recovery from the recession and helped the people back to work. we can't do anything about it in the long run, but we can help the economy bounce back quickly. i would also note that at the current moment that it doesn't really matter because we are below our target and we are above where we like it to be. and so this is part of the

strong accommodation to help them recover. and so looking in retrospect, that is a hard question. every decision we make is done in real-time with sufficient information and whatever you know at the time. and whatever the experts are telling about any particular issue and honestly we are slow to recognize the crisis and i was slow to recognize the crisis and in retrospect it was a traditional classic crisis and a different guise in different types of institutions and it made up for a historian like me very difficult. whether we could have done more about it, that is another question and by the time i became chairman, it was 2006 and house prices were already declining. most of the mortgages have been made, but obviously it would've

been good to recognize that earlier and take preventative action. that being said, we have done everything we can think of to strengthen the ability of the fed to monitor the markets and take this with the financial system and going forward we are much better prepared to deal with these kinds of events i became chairman in 2006. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to indulge the local question and the broader question. i think there's a lot of interest as to whether you'll write your kiss and tell book. but do you envision a role for yourself in south carolina host chairmanship? and the broader question is, your predecessor, doctor greenspan, in his new book he argues that long-term

investments, one of the reasons that we may see a slow economy is that people are afraid and that deficits are reducing the long-term investment in companies are investing and they get by with fewer people. this kind of expansion we are not seeing. do you feel that this is part of our sorts of long-term decision-making and doesn't argue for more drastic action? >> do you own the charlotte observer? [laughter] >> most of my family is in north carolina. and i have individuals and we will spend a vacation in north carolina. he is 85 years old and very chipper. >> okay, good. but i think for the immediate future, my wife and i plan to

stay in washington for a bit of time. and about the investment, there are so many that we would like and the recovery is slow and the investment is given by capacity. in this and that means pressure on their capacity to do major new projects. and there's also a variety of insurgencies out there and fiscal and regulatory taxes and so on. and we hear that from our participants around the table as they report for their local districts. and so i think there are a lot of factors. usually we think that the way that the deficit or long-term that would affect investment would be the what is called crowding out, raising interest

rates, but high interest rates, it is not our problem right now. and there are plenty of and we intend to try to provide that to help the economy growing to stimulate investment spending. and i think that it is going to take a faster overall growth to get firms to try to expand capacity. and if consumer spending increases as we think it will, and as exports increase, we will see greater investments as well. >> mr. chairman, it has been a pleasure. one of the factors that we say will be considered in assessing

the future pace of asset purchases is the cost and efficacy of the purchases. also, to what extent, to one extent is that calculation already change and to what extent did that affect today's decision and going forward, looking on the cost side, someone else mentioned bubbles. and to what extent the whole consideration of threats, coming into play, as well as the particular losses for the portfolio. >> i will answer your question and help you do a better job hopefully as well. and we do think again as a secondary tool behind the interest rate policy. and we do think that the cost benefit ratio, particularly as the assets on the balance sheet

gets large, then it moves in a way that is less favorable. and the costs involved include managing the exit from that and the possible -- it's very unlikely that the fed will have any comprehensive sense. they have put this back since 2009 and it is about as much as the treasury between 1990 and 2007. and so over any period of time, it could be that if interest rates rise quickly that we will be in a situation of not giving to the treasury for a couple of years. and this is part of the congressional response.

and there are issues of how well we understand and can manage the asset purchases, for example, an important difference with interest rates policies is that it is called a term premium, which is the additional part of the interest rates for holding longer-term securities and we don't always understand and so we saw a very big jump with what has been destabilizing and this includes the financial markets. and this is less attractive tools and other policies. and that is the reason we have relied primarily on interest

rates as a supplement. when we've needed it to keep forward progress. and i think that, obviously there are some financial stability issues involved there and we have looked at the possibility that it has led to crisis is in certain markets and excessive leverage or risk-taking. we don't think that it's happened to a certain extent, except one that unwinds, you can create some lumpiness and interest rates are markets. we try to address it by making sure that things have a lot of

capital and by using what ever other tools that we have to try to enjoy other kinds of financial risks. and that being said, i don't think you can ignore the stability concerns in monetary policy. because there may be situations when financial instability has implications for our mandates, which is jobs and inflation, which is on the great recession. so the very complex issue and it will be many years before central banks have worked this out and these or other types of issues. the asset purchases program, the last one, is well on its way to meeting the economic objective.

over time, winding down this program because we reached our objective and this is not a concern at this juncture where it was programmed. >> aniline curds with cnn. the first had boosted gdp by about 3% and increased private sector employment by 2 million jobs. and i'm wondering do you feel the third round packed as much bang for your buck, and do you still think the first study offered a reasonable effort?

and obviously you have to ask yourself what would've happened in the absences of a policy. but i think it's a very interesting study in upon the upper end of the estimates that people have gotten a variety of studies, looking at the effects. but i'm pretty comfortable that this included the creation of jobs and i cited some figures to repeat. the forecast for this current quarter, made on the order of 7.8%, and that was before the fiscal cliff deal, which created more fiscal headwinds for the economy. and now we are at 7%.

and it brought down car loan interest rates, and we have seen the favorable response in those areas. moreover, this has been done in the face of unusually tight fiscal policy for a recovery period. i do think it's been effective. but the size of the impact is something we can disagree about and work will continue about. and as i said before the uncertainty about this impact, it is part of the ending programs and so on and why we are treating this as a supplementary tool. [inaudible question] >> i'm from the l.a. times.

unemployment benefits, as you know, expire for more than a million people. and how much of an economic impact do you see that having and what effect would you expect that would have on the unemployment rate? if those people dropped out of the labor force, will come down? >> quite a bit. yes. it has a big economic effect in those have been talking about this for it while and it's a major concern and one that i cited in my opening remarks. and the effects of unemployment benefits, they are probably not very large because they work in two directions. on one hand, providing additional income.

and it is spent and people tend to spend a lot on this. and that is a positive for growth and on the other side, some folks can no longer qualify for employment benefits will drop out of the labor force. and sometimes that will result in the wrong reasons. but overall, it could have a very small effect on the measured unemployment rate. but that issue needs to be discussed more in terms of the impact than the overall economy. >> hello, i'm keeping within from politico and this is a

follow-up to an earlier question we talked about. the centennial review that the house is undertaking and they have been under a lot of scrutiny. and the importance of them standing up to political basher. i'm wondering what advice you have had one comes to dealing with congress. >> that is an excellent question. and i think that the first thing to agree to is that congress is our boss. the federal reserve is an independent agency within the government. it's important that we maintain our policy of independence without political interference. at the same time, it's up to the congress to set the mandate and that is entirely legitimate. and we need to go and explain ourselves. we need to explain why certain approaches are not so good or might be better. and honestly they represent the

public. and they certainly have every right to set the terms in which the federal reserve operates and so on. and so that being said, we are in effect of the central bank and that we are near the frontier in terms of transparency and the effectiveness of our policy and we are among the central bankers and other policymakers around the world. and so -- i hope that when we do review this, that they rely upon the expertise and highly qualified individuals who know the ins and outs of central banking and it's not just simple matters. and it would be very interesting to have a thorough discussion of many issues that involve what the fed is engaged in.

and i hope it would be a high-level that uses the most qualified people debating what changes, if any, are needed. and what is being done right. >> hello, my name is mary jacobson. on the question of longer-term unemployment and the drop in labor force participation. how much do you see that as a result of structural changes going on in the economy at this point. also, to what extent do you think government can alleviate that in this environment? >> i think that a lot of the declines in the participation rate are, in fact, demographic or structural, reflecting social optical trends. many of the changes that we are seeing now we were seen to some

degree before. and we have a number of staffers here that have studied the participation rates and the like. and i think a lot of what we have seen is contrary to what you hear. a lot of it does come from jobs as opposed to declining participation and that being said, there is a portion of the decline in participation, which is related to people dropping out of the labor force because they are discouraged and skills become obsolete. and because they lost the attachment to the labor force and the fed can address that. i think that training our workforce to fit the needs of

the 21st century industry in the world that we have today, it is definitely the job of the private educational sector and the government sector and we have many strengths in our educational sector, including outstanding universities. and there are many factors that affect participation rates and so on. and not everyone has to have a phd. and that is one of the biggest challenges that our society faces today. if we don't address it, we see a larger number of people who are either unemployed or underemployed or working at very low wages, which honestly is not something that we want to see. >> thank you.

>> the afl-cio president richard trumka sits down tomorrow to discuss the economy and the state of u.s. labor unions. to get started at 8:00 a.m. eastern. and on c-span3, a forum on mexico's decision to private investment for the first time in 75 years, ending the state monopoly. that is live from the atlantic council at 8:30 p.m. eastern. >> like so many of the viewers, you know, i would do the annual consideration of the things they care about because they were important to us as we grew up