stripped so they don't have close and cannot run away, put out on the streets, watched, moved around. it becomes too hot in one area. they are moved to another, moved to another state. the come from other countries. and it just seems to me to have this in this bill and sen., i have great respect for you. you. i have wanted to work with you on this. i no you are sincere. it is not in the house bill. maybe the house understands this. i can't speak for the house. >> i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy. >> is there objection? >> i would be happy to. >> otherwise we will have to keep addressing questions through the chair at asking permission. i would like to have a chance to have an honest conversation with my friend. so, it is clear that the

senator from california has voted for this restriction on the use of taxpayer funding for abortion previously. >> not to my knowledge. let me put it that way. way. now, you can blame me and you can say, i should've known. but i am not the only one on our committee, senator who is in this position either. communicated with your staff and under the impression that the bill was identical to last year. with exception of seven pieces, which is not this. >> i am not going to engage in a debate about whether you should have known or how you voted in the past. i do believe the record would demonstrate that you, among others, voted for the affordable care act which

actually the national aborts rights action league says is an expansion. let me ask the senator you rightly.out that these child victims of sexual assault will have been raped either statutory rape, below the age of consent or are adults that may have been assaulted, criminally assaulted. the exclusion would still allow them to gain access to the services that you believe they need and deserve? >> yes, i think that is correct. i suppose we could change this to have a rape implication, but the government has been thrown down. there was no open discussion in our committee when we discussed that there was a highly sensitive issue.

you can say and i we will plead mea culpa. i we will always -- wave -- wave a with and get my staff. they will look henceforth. you and i no that occasionally things slip through. through. i will plead mea culpa on that. but once i found out i had an obligation to do something about it. and so i am pleading with you let's take it out let's pass this bill, let's put the amendment on time, go after the internet purveyors, go after 19 sites who put pictures of girls 12, 12, 13, 14 to be sold all around the united states , to be sold at a big football games in various areas of the country. let's let's go after them. isn't that more important?

i ask you a question. >> the reason i am so confused by the filibuster of this legislation by people including my friend who already voted for. i am not about pointing fingers in terms of what staff or members should have read or understood by legislation, but i believe the reason why it was not debated at the judiciary committee level is because it had become a routine matter since 1976 when the amendment was passed. every appropriation of labor or hhs or other funding that could arguably used tax dollars for abortions has been limited by the language. i had members who were proudly pro-choice. i am proudly pro-life. they said, we still believe taxpayer funds should not be used for abortions except in the case of rape or to protect the health of the victim.

>> may i ask you a question? why then isn't it in the house language? >> i would say i cannot vouch for the house product. i can just tell you what the congress as a whole has done since 1976. that was the reason why we referred in the legislation on page 50 that you have blown up your referring it to the language and the appropriation committee which i am confident my friend, the sen. from california, voted for just like you did in the limitation that was contained in the affordable care act and all the other times. this has become so remarkable and routine that it hardly seems like something you would.out because it does not change the status quo at all. you know, we talked about a

ways to get past this impasse. i would have to say that i think abandoning the amendment would be a dramatic mistake and something i am not willing to be a part of. it has become this one area in a divisive area of abortion whether has been bipartisan consensus for 39 years to the.that it has remained a law of the land. to take to take it out and say that we will depart from the today would be a dramatic expansion. i would say if the ways we can deal with this fund a fund that can be appropriated on an annual basis subject to the normal restrictions, i talked to the ranking member, our friend from vermont about the possibility. there are ways we might be able to get to a solution. stripping out this limitation which has been

the law of the land is not acceptable because it would represent a huge expansion on the use of taxpayer funding in ways that many of my pro-choice friends don't support. >> i guess i disagree with that. those of us that believe that a woman should control her own reproductive system in concert with her family and her dr. really have objection to the government getting involved in telling us what to do. it is actually not your reproductive system. i say you generically as a man. it is ours. and so in a a sense this has been a battle for our identity. i sat on a term setting and throwing rolling authority in california in the 1960s when abortion was illegal. i sentenced women to state

prison for abortion. it had been an indeterminate sentence of between six months and ten ten years. i saw the abortionists come back to prison. i asked one when i was setting the symptoms why do you keep doing this? her 1st name was anita. she said, because i feel so feel so sorry for the women. and that was the way that it was. i remember passing the plate at stanford for a a young woman to go to tijuana for an abortion. the morbidity that was done to women who back alley abortions this is all -- you have opened a pandora's box of big, emotional issues for women. end of the amendment you you know, there is rape if you can prove it, that is right. then there is a 12

-year-old, 13 -year-old that is out on the street prostitute. it's a different thing. a different thing. sort of the same, but sort of different. the overwhelming evil of this trade overcomes any of this because you take a young woman and probably change their life for the worse for the rest of their life. can you imagine your daughter being out on the street? my daughter my granddaughters? and what it does to them being handcuffed and moved and traded around the country nepal india, all over europe, over europe, this is what is going on. so we are sitting here arguing essentially about the availability of an abortion in this area. to me that is so secondary

to the enormous harm that is being done. and so i really have great respect for you. you have been a distinguished jurist in your state. you make sense when you speak in the judiciary committee. we have listens to each other for more than a decade now. let this drop. let us get on with the work of this bill. the work of this bill is not completed until we get some of the amendments of relate. and and then i think that we can debate this another day. i would plead a mea culpa. i i wish i knew. all i can tell you is i did i did not know. is that my fault? probably. i did not know. if you don't know and make a mistake, isn't the right thing to try to set that -- try to set that right?

and that is what we have tried to do. and women on our side and so on your side feel very strongly about this. you no over the years we have lost virtually every battle on this war. we are tired of it. we are taking a stand, and we are going to hold that stand. >> mr. pres. i obviously don't agree with my friend from california, but i respect her for answering the questions that i have posed to her today. i just find it a a terrible shame that we are going to relitigate what has been the law of the land for 39 years 39 years on this bill in a way that would block help to the very people that i no that the senator from california care so passionately about. if we are going to undo the amendment which the senate

has voted for in some form or another repeatedly, then we are not going to make any progress. if we can find some other way to structure the fund so that the appropriateness of a more direct role in appropriating the fines and penalties paid on an annual basis, maybe there is room to talk. but i. but i think the senator for her courtesy in answering my questions. i i am sorry that we find ourselves at this loggerhead but i hope that sometime -- >> may i say one more thing? it is my understanding that there is no language in federal statute on sex trafficking that the fines a trafficking survivor is a victim of rape. the victim would have to prove that she is a victim of rape. now, look at what happens. i don't know if it took you

close to victims of very young victims of this cover-up, who don't want to let people know. you know you know all of this is a two's, the hard life. you are asking someone who -- she has to prove it. >> i would say to my friend that when i was atty. gen. of texas for four years i had a responsibility for administering the crime victim compensation fund as part of my duties of office. we work directly with victims groups, including those who took care of young children who have been sexually assaulted sometimes by members of their own family the worst and most reprehensible sorts of crimes. can i ask the sen. one last question? the procedural vote we have had on the floor twice now where democrats have blocked our ability to both vote on amendments including amendments that the senator

may have. why why is there an objection to processing those amendments? why can't we vote on it? why can't the democratic minority of that disturbed the language out. >> can i answer that as honestly as i feel? there are many of us do believe this is one small way. we have had loss after loss after loss. and you know we many of us ran on the right to choose. i was one of them. i'm old. i am old enough to have seen the way that it was before do have sentenced women who committed illegal abortion with careers. and and that is sort of the

systemic root of all this. it is our history senator command we are trying to change that history. we keep losing. there is one small thing in this. we did not see it. we have to live with that. i understand it. now we see it and are trying to do something about it. .. change and we pass this bill and maybe we can even strengthen it in amendments, and you have done a superior job in putting the bill together. let it go. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would just say this conclusion that i think it's a terrible shame that your side of the aisle has decided to take this bill hostage to try to litigate something that's been the law of the land for 349 years. and -- for 39 years. and i understand that you feel passion fatlypassionately about t but why in the world would you take hostage

a piece of legislation that's going to help those 100,000 children that are sex-trafficked each year? why should they suffer so you can make a why should they suffer so that you can make a point on a piece of legislation? i just don't understand that and i think it's terrible. >> let me answer a question with a question, why don't you just take it out? it's not in the house bill. then we don't have to conference it and we don't have to have another fight. we can get the amendments in the bill to strengthen the bill and we can move on and the two parties together can do something that's right for the nation. why do we do it? >> mr. president i would say to my friend, i don't blame her for asking but why in the world would we change the law for 39 years in order to accommodate the minority's view on this bill and to change like i said what has been the law of the land?

since the senator voted for this very language previously in this year in the judiciary committee since he cosponsored it i mean i don't really understand that since you voted for the legislation that is referred to here, do you see this as breaking new ground? are you trying to expand the hyde amendment? >> i see it as standing up for principle. i know something about these girls. i know something about their history of abortion in this country. i am old enough to have gone through it and know that i don't want to go back to those days. i don't want young women who take the law so much for granted to have to return back. this is just one small step and you know there's nothing wrong with accommodating the minority on what is a relatively small point. obviously it's not in the house to relatively small point. you have 435 people over there

who didn't want it and so why not accommodate the minority? you would just come out of bigger person. >> mr. president i would say to my friend and i appreciate her courtesy and her indulgence in having this conversation. i also feel on principle that this limitation on tax dollars is an appropriate one and i understand the senator disagrees and she would like to eliminate this from this point forward but i'm simply unable on principle to accommodate the senator on that request and essays that i do appreciate your courtesy. thank you. >> i appreciate it too and i appreciate the discussion and you know principle doesn't know minority and majority. principle is deeply held. thank you very much. thank you very much mr. president. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. >> the senate is done for the night and as you just saw members continue to work on an anti-human trafficking bill earlier today. the legislation would increase fines and penalties against persons convicted while providing more restitution and assistance for victims. democrats have objected to the building to abortion language and because of that senators once again locked the bill from advancing. votes are expected tomorrow in the senate turns -- returns live thursday at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. earlier today federal reserve chair janet yellen held a news conference following the open market committee meeting. she discussed implications for federal funds rate increase and how that could impact the job market and inflation. here's more now. >> returning to monetary policy as i noted at the outset that

committee reaffirms its view that the current zero to one quarter% target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate but with economic conditions improving and with further improvements expected in the months ahead we have again modified our forward guidance. in december and january the committee judged that we could be patient in normalizing the stance of monetary policy. that meant that we considered it unlikely economic conditions would warrant an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of fomc meetings. while it's still the case that we consider it unlikely economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range at the april meeting such an increase could be warranted at any later meeting depending on how the economy evolves.

let me emphasize again that today's modification of forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. in particular this change does not mean an increase will necessarily occur in june although we can't rule that out. as we noted in our statement, the decision to raise the target rate will depend on our assessment of realized and expected progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. we continue to base that assessment on a wide range of information including measures of market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations and reading some financial and international developments.

we anticipate that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when the committee has seen further improvements in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. once we begin to remove policy accommodation we continue to expect that in the words of our statement even after employment inflation and are a consistent level of economic conditions for some time warrant keeping the target centered funds rate below levels the committee uses in the longer-run. >> those were some of the comments made earlier today by federal reserve chair janet yellen at a news conference in washington. you can see her entire comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span2. tomorrow on "washington journal" washington congressman rick morrison discusses u.s. military efforts in iraq and syria after the president's proposed authorization for the use of military force against isis. >> now isis moves ahead in this

army is very shaky. we shouldn't be surprised by that. you can't undo decades of soviet era and saddam era stuff in eight years especially when you have u.s. advisers partner with them. afghanistan according to the president's announcement currently we have 10,000 troops in the training and advising role. we'll drive down to 5000 next year and almost to zero after that. i would war we would see a similar result than what we saw in iraq when isis attack to the afghan army can be shaky without u.s. help. >> earlier today the senate budget committee met to consider chairman mike and the's 2016 budget proposal.

senators offered opening statements and initial thoughts on the resolution which they committee plans to mark up on thursday. this portion is a little less than an hour. >> i bubble called the committee to order. today we begin the markup of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. i want to thank my colleagues for all the input and hard work in putting together the concurrent resolution. in addition i would like to thank the ranking member senator sanders for all of our meetings and discussions that have led up to this markup. while we have general disagreements on policy and the direction of the budget we have had good discussions on how we will maintain cooperation and stability through the process. this will provide members from both sides without the opportunity to offer and discuss their amendments. as has been the past practice of prior chairman this afternoon

will be reserved for opening statements and tomorrow's meeting will be reserved for the offering debating and voting on amendments and final passage of the amended resolution. before we begin opening statements i would like to take a few moments to discuss the parameters and guidelines for this market. other than the chairman and ranking member i request members to try and limit their statements to six minutes. the recognition of members will be in accordance with our committee rules. no amendments will be in order this afternoon. tomorrow morning we will reconvene at 10:30 in the offering debating voting on amendments will begin. as as been the practice of prior chairman all a amendments other than complete substitutes must fully offset over the total years covered by the budget resolution. in addition members must bring at least 75 copies of their amendments for the convenience and courtesy of the members and staff. since the senate amendments are

nonbinding for the purpose of this markup i will rule all nonbinding amendments out of order. that way we can focus on substandard amendments. the budget resolution is considered to be a privilege matter and we will be consulting with the parliamentarian on amendment offered to ensure they cannot risk or endangered the privileged status of the resolution. for example amendment outside the committee's jurisdiction or amendments that attempt to amend authorizing statutes would be classified as nongermane and outside the scope of this market. if the parliamentarian advises the member would threaten the privilege of the resolution i will rule the amendment out of order. with respect to voting our committee rules do not allow for proxies. therefore members must be present when votes take place an order for the vote to be tallied. as has been done in prior budget resolution mark-ups i will recognize members to offer an debate amendments and certain

loss of time and step will vote on the amendments throughout the day that i recognized member schedules will have conflicts through the day so i will be working with the ranking member to find convenient times. our committee rules require 12 members are present to report on the budget resolution 8 members to conduct committee business. during the 2013 budget resolution mark-ups chair murray and ranking member sessions reached an agreement to keep the markup moving forward even if there were at times fewer than eight members present. the ranking member and i have agreed that situation works well so we will try again. i ask unanimous consent that for the purposes of opening statements the offering of amendments and the debate on amendments during the markup a quorum requirement be considered for the remainder of the markup. without objection. one final matter before we start opening statements. we intend to file the necessary documents on friday so we can proceed to consideration of the

budget resolution on the senate floor next week. after the conclusion of the markup members may submit additional views. written views need to be signed by the chief clerk no later than friday march 20. i will proceed to my opening statement. today we begin the monumental task of confronting our nation's chronic overspending and exploding debt threatens each and every american. make no mistake our fiscal outlook is grim and has been ignored for far too long. we have a profound moral responsibility to help hard-working taxpayers receive the true picture of our country's finances. this is also an opportunity to make significant changes in how we do business in order to safeguard the future of our kids and grandkids. the resolution we will be debating this week is a

responsible plan that balances the budget for 10 years with no tax hikes. it also protects their most vulnerable citizens, strengthens the national defense and improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. this balanced budget delivers the hard-working taxpayers a more effective efficient and accountable government which supports americans when it must and gets out of the way when it should. we are in control of $1,100,000,000,000 in spending in this fiscal year we will spend 468 billion more than we take in. this is an unsustainable financial path and of congress were to do what every american family has to do to live within our means we would have to cut what we spend in half. that would be a 50% cut. why should we be concerned? why the urgency to act now? right now we pay $230 billion in

each year year. the president's own numbers raise that to $780 billion a year. every dollar spent on interest on debt is another dollar we won't be able to use for government services for individuals in need or another dollar that won't be billed for for taxpayers for their own needs. what if the interest rates grow faster or higher? the senate budget committee is tax with the responsibility of setting spending parameters. congress has other committees to invent government programs and are charged with overseeing the efficiency and effectiveness. we have another committee that annually allocates the exact dollars for these programs. i repeat the senate budget committee sets the spending parameters. in other words that means we set the limits priebus is my pets -- passing a budget is important for nation and lets policymakers who actually allocate the dollars get to work by following our spending limits.

so we have a looming debt of $18 trillion on its way to 25 trillion could we have annual interest of $230 billion heading to $700 billion. the budget committee is saying we need to start talking about how best to make government live within its means and set spending limits to try but we have to act now while we still have choices. we are setting some challenges for each committee and each spending committee. what we do not say it specifically what those committee should do. in my eight weeks as chairman i reviewed every number i could find and with hard-working committee members including some of the democrats who have set some limits. there are 260 programs according to the cbo congressional budget office whose authority has expired. yes, expired. but they are still being funded.

that's $293 billion that has been recently reviewed. some of those programs have been expired for more than six years. one group of programs expired in 1983 and money is still being spent every year. we literally have spending we don't even know is going on. congress is responsible for all of that and now is the time to begin to guide we'd insult the dangerous financial crises facing our nation. if government programs are not delivering results they should not be improved. if they are not delivering results, they should be eliminated. if they can be improved, we can work on it and if they are not needed they should be eliminated. it's time to look at all of them prioritize and demand results from our government programs. the appropriators are roque and down into spending subcommittees have begun to scrutinize every

dollar actually with the billions of dollars we have to allocate every single year they are likely to scrutinize every million dollars. we will share broad areas where we think there can be efficiencies. we know this will be a challenge or every single senator. in fact every single member of congress. you're also going going to hear a lot about budget caps this week so in 2010 the budget committee saw the problem coming and they set broad spending limits into law not in a resolution like we are doing here with the house and senate passing spending parameters. these limits were signed into law by the president. if we break those limits and only if we break those limits the penalty called sequestration kicks in which results in an across-the-board cut but if we do our jobs we can have flexibility and eliminate what isn't working starting with the worst first and then we can

eliminate waste and streamline what is left. you won't find specifics on what we have done, just limits and we have built-in flexibility using reserve funds. you will hear two approaches about how to get out of this dilemma. one, improve and expand the economy in order to grow jobs and increase wages or two raise taxes. not everyone is opposed to tax increases. those who will directly receive the results of these increases are happy. every program has a constituency and supporters and employees. it's important to remember that government gets are not free and our government was never designed as a gift giver. government can often be the problem but the government comes to be expected and not appreciated. worse yet those that could be helping with the problem feel relieved of any obligation.

government often perpetuates dependence instead of independence. i'm reminded the story of the vendor who wanted give a new water treatment device to tribe in africa and the device required virtually no maintenance. the chief said don't give it to us. people don't appreciate what is given to them for free. many of those paying for these government gifts are hard-working american taxpayers most of whom feel like they are making donations for things they have no say in and in many cases don't believe in. when government provides too much the recipient doesn't appreciate the help and there is no satisfaction being felt by the person being forced to donate. the majority of hard-working americans are fed up because they feel like they are carrying the load and policies and regulations are put in place in washington they can mean people will lose their jobs. they also know the smaller the business the more likely it is

to affect their job. this budget does have a dual reconciliation. this is an expedited process for passing a bill with some very specific constraints. also requiring the president's signature when the actual reconciliation bill is passed. there is a supreme supreme court case coming up on the affordable care at. we have the flexibility for that health care dilemma. working together on a balanced budget we may even begin to have trust funds that contain actual money again and set up ious but we pretend to have cash. we can also build funds dedicated to the reason we collected the specific funds that people will be willing to pay because they know that those funds are being used for and can see the results that they were promised and those results are actually delivered. the a budget is the start of that process. we have more dollars to deal

with than anyone can imagine or follow and currently take in more revenue, fancy word for taxes, than at any time in history. i truly believe that by working together we can deliver real solutions, real results and real progress. not only is this possible, it's doable and it's what the american people want and deserve deserve. first we have to find common ground and cooperate to get things done. may god help us in the days ahead and may god bless america. centers. >> mr. chairman thank you very much for holding this hearing and thank you for your civility. i think we all look forward to the markup tomorrow. also by the way thank you for releasing the budget a little bit earlier than is often released and we have had at least a few hours to examine it. as we all know as the chairman

indicated the federal budget that we are working on is not an appropriations bill. it does not provide explicit funding for this or that agency or this or that program. what it does do is lay the foundation for that process. it tells the appropriations committee or the 302a allocations the total amount of money they have to spend. in other words this budget is more than just a very long list of numbers. the federal budget is about our national priorities and about our values. it is about who we are as a nation and what we stand for. it is about how we assess the problems facing our country and how we resolve them. that is what our committee is undertaking and it is a very very serious responsibility. let's be clear, no family no business, no local or state government can responsibly write

a budget without first understanding the problems and challenges that it faces and that is even more true when we deal with the federal budget of some $4 trillion. as i examined the budget brought forth by the republicans in the house and here in the senate this is how i see their analysis of the problems facing our country. at a time of massive wealth and income inequality my republican colleagues apparently believe that the richest people in this country need to be made even richer. it is apparently not good enough that 99% of all new income today is going to the top 1%. it is not good enough for the top one tenth of 1% today to own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

it's just not good enough. clearly in the eyes of many republicans, the wealthy and the powerful need more help. not only should they not be asked to pay more in taxes my republican colleagues believe that we should cut tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. it is not good enough that corporate america is enjoying record-breaking profits and that the ceos of large corporations earn some 290 times more than what the average employee earns. it is apparently not good enough that since 1985 the top one tenth of 1% pace seen in more than 8 trillion-dollar increase in its wealth than what they would have had if income equality had stayed at the same

level that it was in 1985. an 8 trillion-dollar increase in wealth for the top one tenth of 1% but for many of our republican colleagues it's just not good enough. meanwhile if i understand the republicans as manifested in the house and senate budget it appears that millions of middle-class and working families people who are working more for hours for low wages, people who are seeing significant declines in their standard of living over the last 40 years, these people apparently do not need our help rather they need to see a major reduction in federal programs that make their lives and the lives of their children a little bit better. at a time when we have over 45 million americans living in poverty more than almost any

time in vermont's history in the country by republican colleagues think that we should increase that number by cutting their current income tax credit, affordable housing and medicaid. a time when almost 20% of our children live in poverty the highest rate of child -- who in the industrialized world my republican colleagues think that maybe we should raise the childhood poverty rates a little bit higher by cutting childcare by cutting head start by cutting the child tax credit and by cutting nutrition programs for hungry children. to summarize, the rich get much richer and the republicans think they need more help. the middle-class and working-class families of this country become poorer and the republicans think we need to cut programs that we need. frankly that may maybe the priority of some people in this room but i do not believe it's

the priorities of the american people. mr. chairman today the united states remains the only industrial country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all of its people. we have about 40 million americans who lack health insurance and millions more who are underinsured. well apparently that is not good enough for our republican colleagues. they want to abolish the affordable care act and take away the health insurance for some 60 million americans who have gained insurance through that program. in other words 40 million people uninsured we would have 6 million people without health insurance that would include the cost of medicaid that they propose for more vulnerable families in america. further when you make massive cuts in medicaid you also cut the nursing home care for seniors.

perhaps the most vulnerable and helpless people in our country. is that really what we are about as a nation? i talk about the devastating impact of the house and senate republican budget would have on the american people but equally important is what these budgets do not do. it's a serious problem that they do not address. poll after poll tells us the issue the american people are the most concerned about our jobs wages and the economy. that is what the american people are mostly concerned about and for good reasons. despite a significant improvement in the economy over the last six years since president obama has been in office real unemployment today is not the official 5.5%. it is 11% -- those over 70% and african-american youth unemployment is higher than that. what the american people want and what the republican budget

ignores is the need to create millions of decent paying jobs. in my view and the view of economists all over the country the fastest way to do that is to rebuild our public infrastructure our roads, bridges -- bridges wastewater plants libby's. according to the civil engineers we need to invest over $3 trillion by year 2020 and aren't the structure. at a time when millions of americans are working for starvation wages in the federal minimum wage remains at an abysmal 7.25 an hour we need a budget that substantially increases wages for low income and middle income workers. we also need pay equity in this country so women do not make 78 cents on the dollar form men to do the same work. further we need to address the

dash that many people are working 50 or 60 hours a week and i'm not getting time and a half. those are the issues that the american people are concerned about. in vermont and across this country and unfortunately the republican budget refuses to address these issues of enormous consequence. i can tell you in vermont and i suspect every state we represent young people and their families are normatively frustrated by the high cost of college education and a horrendously oppressive student debt that many of them leave school with. in fact student that today is $1.2 trillion. as so second largest category of debt in this country more than credit card debt and more than a month it. does the republican budget do anything to lower interest rate on student debt? infect their budget would make a bad situation even worse. as the republican budget support

president obama's initiative to make two years of community college free or any other effort to make college more affordable? apparently it does not go but it does do is cut $90 billion in pell grants over a ten-year. math. mr. chairman my republican colleagues are concerned about the deficit which by the way has been reduced by more than two-thirds in the last six years. every member on the side of the aisle is also concerned about the deficit. my republican friends are concerned about an 18 trillion-dollar national debt and we are concerned about an 18 trillion-dollar national debt that would many of us recognizes that one reason in recent years the debt has gone up is we have been brought into two wars that we haven't paid for. we have created an insurance program. we have got to pay for that and

we have provided huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country and did not offset it. mr. chairman the high national debt is an issue that we are also concerned about that where we disagree is how you address the deficit and the debt. what we believe is from a moral perspective and an economic perspective you do not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor and give tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. today major corporation after major corporation pays in a given year zero, zero and federal income taxes. according to recent reports that congressional research each and every year corporations are avoiding about $100 billion in taxes by putting profits in the cayman islands and other offshore tax havens.

in 1952 corporations contributed 32% of all federal revenue and today that numbers about 11%. in terms of individual tax breaks we have the absurd situation where hedge funds managers who make hundreds of billions of dollars a a year pay an effective tax rate lower than a truck driver or a nurse. if anybody in america thinks that makes sense. and the last point that i want to make is that the best way we can do a budget and effective budget is to move to a full employment economy with jobs that are paying workers a living wage. when we do that by investing in infrastructure by investing in education, by investing in research and development we not only improve the lives of millions of our people, we also take a major step forward in lowering the deficit in lowering the national debt because when people are working their paying

taxes when they pay taxes and you increase revenue we lower the national debt. mr. chairman thank you very much and i certainly look forward to the remainder of this hearing. >> thank you senator sanders and for the information of all members -- [chanting] >> the committee will stand in recess for the capitol police to restore order. [chanting] [chanting] >> the committee will come to order and the statements from

senators will be a little longer than normal for a total of six minutes apiece and we will rotate under the committee's regular practice. senator grassley. >> first i think we should commend you for the difficult work that it takes to compile a budget. there have been many times during the past six years that the senate failed miserably in our obligation to produce a budget and you have fulfilled the requirements in all 74. many years went by when we didn't produce a budget at all. you answered the call of the american people to produce a budget and also delivered on the promises of our party in the last election that we would have a budget. as you have demonstrated improvements and responsible budgets by getting the balance over 10 years i would also like to thank you for including a number of provisions that my request that will improve medical services and rural areas

and give seniors and increased supportive work for young disabled individuals. i am sure we will hear a great deal of criticism from the other side on this budget resolution and we have already heard that. i don't know what the minority intends to offer in their own budget blueprints so for comparison's sake since i don't have one of their budgets to compare it against its important to remember what president obama proposed six weeks ago over the ten-year. math. president obama spread -- budget would increase taxes by $1.8 trillion in spending would increase by two and 410000000000000. 7.5 chile will be added to the national debt. payments on the interest would triple from 230 billion today to more than 800 billion by 2025. the president presence budget was criticized by budget experts

for ignoring the drivers of our long-term debt. the president was criticized for declaring our debt problems have been solved. one expert stated and i quote the focus on promoting investment today will do little good if our massive debt is choking the investments of tomorrow end of quote. it seems this point has never been fully acknowledge that the other side. overspending today will harm economic growth prosperity and opportunity for future generations. increasing spending today paid for by increasing the debt burden on our children and grandchildren is a moral equivalent of selling a and the pope. they promise of economic growth through unending deficit spending defies logic and common sense. hearings before the budget committee at those hearings we heard from a number of witnesses

that discuss the economic benefits of eliminating overspending and balancing the budget. balancing the budget will increase private investment and grow the economy. stronger economic growth leads to higher wages for american workers. a balanced budget will help keep interest rates low keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working americans and helping reduce the borrowing cost of college students. a balanced budget will lead to reduced interest payments on the national debt meaning resources are available for important priorities rather than wasting them on interest payments. we all want to help hard-working families and taxpayers. we should help them by providing an efficient and effective and accountable federal government. we should help them by growing the economy. we should help them by demonstrating that congress has the ability to put the federal

government on a path to live within our means. the minority speaks a great deal about the need to bring substantial new revenue into the federal coffers. that's a roundabout way of saying the federal government needs more taxes and sooner. the other side wants the government to dig deeper into the pockets of americans. they think the federal government needs to take more of the worker's paycheck to satisfy the needs to spend money. they believe we need more money and that comes from hard-earned money that people and americans earn to support all of president obama's expanding government programs. i'm sure that we will hear or see a slew of amendments from the other side proposing to spend more offset with higher taxes on job creators and

hard-working americans. the fact is there is no limit to the appetite of some to spend money. that's true of president obama's budget which raises the tax burden not to reduce the deficit but instead to spend even more. i will admit the budget proposal before us is imperfect. given our nation's fiscal problems difficult decisions need to be made in order to put us on a path to a balanced budget. unlike the president's budget which is a head in the sand budget chairman enzi has gone to great lengths to produce a responsible budget that makes tough choices to protect and safeguard important safety net programs. what this budgeted knowledges is that deficits and debt matter. they matter to our economy they matter to hard-working americans, they matter to job creators and they matter to

future generations of americans that will suffer from overspending and fiscal carelessness. it's time to safeguard the american dream for the future. this is not just a fiscal issue. it's a moral issue. i hope my colleagues will recognize the responsibility we have to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to receive greater prosperity than our generation. this budget resolution moves us in that direction. i yield. >> annex will be senator king followed by senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman fellow colleagues on the committee. i strongly support the notion of moving forward on time on a budget resolution because budget under regular order is preferable and i applaud the committee's work to bring it to the fight is far and i look forward to working with all on the budget to improve our fiscal policies and national priorities. the committee knows well the story of budgeting in recent

years. there is no single factor that affects the budgeting task we have the force them to sequester that was imposed via a vote of congress in august of 2011. as a former managing director for private entity and mayor entity and mayor and governor i will say this sequester violates every principle of this budget to either private or public sector budget that i've been taught because the notion of across-the-board cuts does not take into account performance data or party judgments which have to be taken into account. i did find sequester that doesn't get used much when i'm asked about a sequester if we can't do something good and let's do something stupid. i have never agreed with the notion that if we can't do something good let's do something stupid but that is what sequester asmat. we have worked together under the leadership of senator murray and senator sessions in the last congress to do a two-year budget deal with the house and memory

ryan plan. it was imperfect but succeeded in reducing sequester significantly provided a two-year framework for fy14/15 a pro-creations bills. i think the outcome of that budget process was to move us in the right direction. the cbo budget projections have shown improvement in economic health since the time. the nation's fiscal health has improved and is the ranking member pension deficits have been dramatically reduced. i hope we can find by the end of the day some similar progress when we get to the budget path. a budget that stood for the country will accomplish number of pillars and promote growth and jobs. second it will replace sequestration the foolish method of doing mindless austerity that is hurt the country, hurt our national defense and hurt my commonwealth of virginia and by doing that we continue down the path of deficit reductions instead of doing it in mindless way. i would like to focus on

questions i would have loved to have asked. i remember when i first did the budget in 2013 at the brand-new member the senate and the opening session involving opportunities to ask questions. that's not the way we are doing it this year. if i had the opportunity to ask questions about the budget that is before us here are the questions i asked and i intend to get into as we focus on the markup tomorrow. why does the mark proposed for the cuts to discretionary spending to the tune of $236 billion over the next 10 years? the discretionary caps that for this discretionary spending in the budget control act are already and workable as congress last year over the appropriations bill. the caps don't work so additional cuts of $236 billion over 10 years or unworkable. the budget proposes nearly $5 billion i'm sorry $5 trillion in cuts and there's

a reconciliation instruction that totals $2 quintillion but am puzzled about why the reconciliation instruction doesn't match the savings target in the budget. there is a reserve fund and sequestration. i think i approve of the intent of it but there is the use a word or instead of and that i want to get in by read at the language. the intent of the reserve fund is to cover both sequester reduction for defense and non-defense and i hope we can get to the bottom of that. we have heard from every service chief in the armed services committee. six of us serve there. this sequester levels are unworkable for the department of defense. how can we believe our nation would be safe and protected and flexible if sequester cuts or maintain this budget as wide as the budget is the january cbo baseline instead of the more updated march the cbo baseline where spending is estimated to be an accumulated $431 billion less over the next 10 years than

the january 10 year estimate? wide as the budget proposed to cut $4 trillion in mandatory spending including cuts to medicare and medicaid and more accurately how does the budget proposed to do that? why doesn't the budget count the cost of an sgr baseline when we know current proposals will total over $170 billion when we have to address this issue by month end. finally as the ranking member touched upon this the budget assumes the affordable care act is repealed including the tax increases that finance health care law but the plan assumes the same level of federal revenue over the next 10 years that the cbo foresees with tax increases in place. how can a budget engage in double counting of this kind but maybe more appropriately as i conclude what are we going to do about 16.4 million people in this country to lose health care many of have it for the first time in their lives?

a statistic is sometimes hard to grasp, 16.4 million people is the combined population of the following states, west virginia if i can read my staffs and reading west virginia idaho hawaii maine new hampshire rhode island montana delaware south dakota alaska north dakota the district of columbia vermont wyoming and nevada. 16 states with health insurance for the first time their lives poised to lose it at the budget were adopted as it is being carried out. thank you mr. chair. >> thank you. senator sessions and then senator king. cnet thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your leadership. i have always admired your work and you have not failed. it's a challenging thing to produce a budget and i appreciate philosophical to some

degree statement about the challenge our nation has. senator murray it's a lot less stressful than i expected and we certainly have a lot evil have worked very hard on this bill. i would note that our democratic colleagues went through a five-year. map with only one budget. senator enzi in his first year as chairman has produced a budget this year and will produce one each year. the united states federal debt stands at $18.2 trillion. president obama took office it was 10.6. that is a shocking increase by any standard and one that threatens the future of every single american. our interest payments on the debt alone are already six times the federal highway budget. our declining deficits as we have heard mentioned have always

been predicted. the increase in deficits that we are going to see in the future have eyes been predicted also and nothing has been done to change that course. this budget changes that course. cbo projects a mere 10 years from now growing interest payments will more than tripled to almost $800 billion. this is a national calamity. one out of every $7 taken from the american people and the economy will be utilized and spent for nothing. interest is -- the incomes of the next generation to pay for today's reckless living. it drains the wealth of the nation and his attack on every working person.

the congressional budget office has repeatedly told us that this dangerous taxing and borrowing and spending would spur economic growth. but growth over the past four years has averaged only 2.2%. about half of which the white house projects cbo omb and the federal reserve have also overestimated in growth. income inequality is real senator sanders but "the new york times" wrote quote income inequality in the united states has been growing for decades but the trend appears to have accelerated during the obama administration closed quote. never has so great a sum of spending then spent to achieve so little. consider since 2000 the year congress that the recession ended the following has occurred. more than 12 man people left the

workforce. real median incomes have dropped $3000. $3000. real median weekly earnings are earning lower than they had in 1979 and a number of people on food stamps has increased by 7 million. almost one in four people in their prime working years are not working. declining income and inequality are real factors. but how do we fix that? we do care about americans. i know that people are hurting this country and so do my colleagues on the side of the island we are concerned about it. we want to do something about it. our constituents are pleading with us to chart a new path not the same old tax-and-spend and regulate. they want a budget that will help millions in the workforce to see their incomes rise for a change. this budget lays the groundwork for much-needed welfare reform. we have to do this. the federal government spends

about $750 billion each year on means tested welfare and poverty support programs including state contributions of the trillion dollars a year on welfare programs. this money is spread across 80 programs administered by a vast bureaucracy with little oversight and no guiding moral visions. only a miniscule 1% of the spending is dedicated to job training. meanwhile job-training is fragmented into 47 different programs throughout the entire budget. chief among them is a more effective compassionate way to spend it $1 trillion every year. are no reforms justified? we spend $30,000 a year on every household living in poverty and still spend only half of what our current welfare burgers he spends each year. imagine if we reprogrammed all

of these funds for job placement and apprentice programs. this would help millions in independence without denying a single person in need. our goal is simple. whenever possible help one find a good paying job that can support a family. government is often measured by how many places on the rolls and we need to be measured by how many people we lift out of poverty. we need some original thinking. corporations say they want to find workers. why not send them to the welfare office instead of the immigration office? i will be offering an amendment in the coming days to help transform the welfare office into a place to restart lives. mr. chairman thank you for your work. i think you have produced a

valuable document and we are going to have to continue advance the principles you have stated here and if we do so we will make this country a better place. >> i want to thank senators for staying close to the six minute limit. next will be senator king followed by senator crapo. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your hard work. i know it isn't easy to make these decisions. first i should say that i definitely share your concerns and those been expressed about the deficit and debt. i think it is a little -- a big problem. think an interest on the debt will crowd out everybody's favorite program whatever it is not something we do need to focus on. the question is how do we get out of this whole? there are 3.5 options that i see. perhaps for. one is to cut expenditures and indeed that is the path that is chosen in this budget. and as i understand the numbers

you would maintain the sequestered levels for defense and for non-defense and then cut starting in 2017 non-defense discretionary by some $236 billion over the remainder of the term. so you have the sequestered and then you have the sequestered for non-defense plus additional cuts. that's the choice, expenditures. i i would periodically remind everyone that the sequestered was designed to be dumped and it is. because it's across-the-board it was designed to provoke us to find a better solution. that was the explicit understanding of at the time of the passage of the act and yet we haven't been able to do that. i see no magic in the sequestered number if indeed we can find other alternatives. i realized the chair is left. there is a space in the budget for the possibility of finding a better alternative but i certainly think that should be

one of our tasks. the number one way to get one way to get out of the hole is to cut expenditures in the second is to increase revenues and by the way that category the budget that never gets discussed is what is called tax expenditures. this is recognized as expenditures by every one republican and democrat economists refer to it as tax expenditures. the decisions made not to apply taxes to certain individuals in certain circumstances and it ranges from everything from hedge fund -- two security mortgages. that number today is $1.5 billion a year. it's larger than the entire discretionary budget of the united states government and when the tax code was reformed in 1986 in real dollars it was about 500 billion. in other words it's almost tripled over the last 25 or 30 years with very little oversight and very little thought about whether those tax expenditures

should continue. increasing revenues would include looking attacks expenditures and seeing if that's a possible way to help us out of the hole. the third option and the best i think we would agree to is to grow the economy. there's a theory out there that if you lower taxes that will automatically lower the economy and i've never seen data that substantiate that. part of the way you grow the economy is making investments. the interstate highway system was an enormous boost to the national economy and an enormous investment which by the way the last generation of americans pay for. they paid for it. they raise the gas tax to pay for that i would argue the most successful economic development program in the history of united states and the entire history of united states with the g.i. bill after world war ii which propelled millions of americans into the middle class. that was an expenditure program. i was in the tax cut, that was

an expenditure program that created the growth to the economy that propelled us to view the 60s and 70s and into our current era. so growing the economy is the answer but a one-sided response to say we are only going to grow the economy by cutting taxes ignores the power of appropriate investments in infrastructure education head start early education and those things that do grow the economy. remember i said there were 3.5 ways that we had to do with this. the other one is health care costs. if you look at the growth of federal expenditures over the next 30 years it is almost entirely be attributable to health care costs. medicare and medicaid pensions of federal workers is almost entirely attributable to health care costs and if we don't do something about health care costs themselves not by shifting them to the states or to seniors

but by doing something about the core undeniable fact that we pay twice as much per-capita for health care in this country than virtually any country in the world, until we tackle that substandard problem we are not going to solve this other problem. that will squeeze out everything everything, defense, non-defense, head start, everything else. health care has to be where we can really make -- we could erase the deficit if we could control health care costs and indeed it appears over the last couple of years health of years health care inflation has slowed to the slow slope -- close levant the tears to the present would argue that the result of the affordable care and others would argue it is other factors but whatever it is that continues that is in itself a huge help to getting us out of that hole. we can't get out of the hole with one answer. there is no silver bullet.

cuts by themselves are not the way we are going to get where we want to get. a friend of mine in maine used to say there is rarely a silver bullet and there's often silver buckshot. a multiplicity of solutions that together will get you to where you want to go. my only problem with your budget mr. chairman is that you focus on one aspect, one part of what amounts to a total of 5 trillion-dollar budget or $6 trillion if you include tax expenditures. you are focused on one very small part of that for the cuts and i just don't think that is how we are going to get there. so i would argue i commend you for the work that has gone into this and the hard part is the details but i hope we can try to find an approach that will lead us toward a balanced budget. that's the goal a share but do it in such a way that will help us to grow the economy and strengthen this country in terms

of all the people that have a contribution to make in a role to play in our society. mr. chairman i loved it when you began god bless the committee and this may have been the room where george mitchell famously said to oliver north although he is often asked to do so god does not take sides in american politics so i couldn't help but think about that when he you said that. thank you mr. chairman. >> i hope i was blessing the whole committee. senator crapo followed by senator whitehouse. cnet thank you mr. chairman and i join with those who thank you for bringing forward a budget. as we all know it's difficult to create a budget in the circumstances we face right now in the united states could i believe you have done a very good job. this is a budget that balances budget that as important reforms that will improve the processes

by which congress operates. it's a budget that contemplates addressing those concerns that it has been raised about our burgeoning health care costs. the budget to contemplate reform on our tax code that we need to make america more competitive and to generate those jobs we all agree are necessary to keep our economy strong and i commend you for that. remarkably we are still debating in washington a budget crisis. although there has been lipservice to the question as to whether or not we have a crisis, the fact is those who say we have gotten past that make the case that we have reduced the deficit by 66% in the last five or six years. what they don't point out is that we have increased our deficit in the two years prior to that by 800% in our current deficits are still nearly half a trillion dollars a year. that's a crisis. i think perhaps the biggest

crisis our nation faces and we have a lot of crazies and a lot of threats today. perhaps the biggest threat we face is the one that comes from within and that's our national debt. there has been a lot of discussion today of interest and what it's doing to our capacity to properly govern in the united states. i want to put up more picture to that story. the interest as has been said is a little under $200 billion in our budget and will grow to about $800 billion over the projected ten-year budget window but what does that mean? interest is the fastest growing up i understand the numbers right, the fastest growing part of our federal budget. just to put a comparison to it and about five or maybe six years max the total interest that we will pay you on our national debt will be greater than all defense spending.

and at the same time it will also have exceeded all non-defense spending and the kind of charges we are seeing here will start happening with interest where the differential grows and grows in exponential proportions. it will push out our ability to do the kinds of things that we all agreed we need to do. and yet we continue to argue over whether we have a crisis. we continue to argue over whether we need to show some austerity and we need to deal with this crisis by addressing the issue. the problem in america is that we spend more than we bring in revenue, not that our taxes are too low. the problem that we have is that we will not recognize that tough decisions have to be made. this budget makes tough decisions and again i commend you mr. chairman for that. i believe that if we would

recognize that responsible restraint in our spending is critical as a major component of our reform that we could achieve those kinds of spending restraint without the kind of frankly unfortunate ways the sequestration policy is forced upon us. this budget does not rely on sequestration. it meets the budget gaps and if i understand the mr. chairman the budget control act passed in as long as we meet those caps we do not face a problematic impact of across-the-board cuts. it allows for deficit-neutral reserve funds that will let this congress, this committee work to figure out how we can then address some of those areas that need to be strengthen such as the national defense spending and some of the other critical areas we need to focus on. i agree with i believe all of my colleagues here on this committee republican and democrat that investment in infrastructure is critical and

it's one of the things that this committee and this congress need to find a solution to. we have been stuck for the last two or three years and trying to resolve that issue and we need to get past it. so there are areas where we can work together but we should quit arguing about whether there's a crisis. we face an incredible crisis. we have to make tough choices and take a stance that i want to address one other thing quickly before my time runs out. a number of those who have spoken today have talked about the fact that in addition to controlling our spending is the revenue side to the solution that is needed. i agree. i disagree that solution is to once again raise taxes. those of us who have worked in a pass on trying to address this issue have recognized you'd be hard-pressed to find a tax code that is more fair, more complex are more expensive to comply with and frankly more anti-competitive to our own business interests and dampens

capital formation in the station. what we need to do what i believe is not the business of this budget is this budget contemplates a major effort to reform our tax code. i think we should flatten it. think we should eliminate a lot of those provisions the tax expenditures that have been described. the complexity of the code and reduce the rates and have a strong powerful -- it will not just generate the revenue we need for our crisis but will prompt and grow the kind of economic response in america that will generate jobs. i see my time is up but mr. chairman again i thank you for bringing forward a strong budget. and now there's going to be a real debate over how we should address these issues but to me the most important thing happening today is this committee is tackling this crisis. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator whitehouse and then

senator toomey. >> thank you chairman. let me at the outset associate myself with senator king's remarks regarding the fact that this budget only focuses on one of the available areas in which we can make deficit progress and also with the caveat we have only seen the budget for the first few hours. these are pulmonary comments but what i do see is that for all the smashing and slashing that is done through the programs that regular families depend on for their kids in public school and their grandparents in nursing homes, for the basic needs that lower income people need, but dominating principle of this budget the one that should have primacy over every other principle is that every tax loophole is sacred. there is not a nickel spent to reduce the deficit which is described as a dangerous financial crisis by the chairman. well, you have to measure how

serious the rhetoric is by the willingness to sacrifice to solve a problem. this budget is a clear concession of the so-called dangerous financial crisis and is actually less important in protecting the interest -- which hedge fund members pay tax rates as low as brick masons and -- i have brought this up in every single single hearing we have had in every single time here we are again. every single tax loophole is sacred. we have had hearings on revenues in which republican witnesses have said we need to have revenues be a part of this and still every tax loophole remains sacred. following on senator king's questions i'm interested in finding out how a budget that purports to root out obamacare and repeal it in its entirety

and counts $2 trillion in savings from repealing its provisions leaves and a trillion dollars in obamacare revenue. that's the way i read it. that seems to be an unusual combination and it certainly doesn't account for the reduction in federal health care spending of $2.4 trillion for passage of the bill which i think has some not absolute but some connection to the affordable care act. i am very nervous that this budget introduces so-called dynamic scoring and it does so in a complete free fire zone in which it is entirely selective when and where so-called dynamic scoring is used and as far as i know there are no ground rules to govern it. if we start down this path dynamic scoring could be used as a sword that cuts both ways. there are no rules for it and i think it's a very dangerous principle to unleash without any

principles that govern it. finally, i will say that i will challenge all of my colleagues on the other side to take the quarter billion dollars in cuts from the sequester and non-defense discretionary spending and actually put them into appropriations accounts. living in a budget fantasyland which explains why more than half of the season is from our empty while we have this debate. i don't think you can do it. i don't think there is one person on the other side of the file that can take cuts of the salver jerry and magnitude of that the budget contemplates and put them into the accounts and defend what happens when you move away from budget abstract and actually go to the programs the people count on.

every taxpayer who is angry about paying their taxes there's a grandmother who is in a nursing home someplace counting on medicaid. there's another grandparent or parent counting on medicare. there's a nephew who counts on the school lunch program and the school down the street. you can't just look at one angry taxpayer and assume that is what america is all about and particularly not for people who have no choice as any longer because they are too old too ill or are still children. as far as i can tell this budget doesn't meet any good reasonable budget keeping seal of approval in terms of the tricks and gimmicks that are in it. it's fundamentally unfair. it is completely inconsistent with the rhetoric about how dangerous the debt crisis is because it puts every single tax loophole in the country's code in a higher place of importance than that supposed crisis.

i would say that the wealthier you are and the more you care about yourself over your neighbor and your country, the more you will like this budget. i yield back my time. ..

welfare and health care spending to reach balance by 2025. it goes on to say the senate relies on a gimmick by counting on the health care law being recalled. you can see the first day of the senate budget committee markup thursday morning at 6:30 a.m. here on c-span two. now janet yellen earlier today. >> janet: good afternoon. as you know, the federalope --

federal open market committee this morning reconfirmed the federal funds rate and we updated our guidance indicating an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at our next meeting in april. with continued improvement in economic conditions however we do not want to rule out the possibility that an increase in the target range could be warranted at subsiacquaint meetings. this will defend on the committee's assessment of incoming information. today's modification of our guidance should not be read to mean that we have decided on the timing of that increase. in other words just because we removed the word patient from the statement doesn't mean we

are going to be impatient. moreover even after the initial increase in the target funds rate, our policy is likely to remain highly accommodative to support continued progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. i will come back to today's policy decisions in a few moments. but first i would like to review economic developments in the outlook for formed the bases for our policy decisions. we have seen continued progress toward our objective of maximum employment. the pace of employment growth has remained strong with job gains averaging nearly 290,000 per month over the past three months. the unemployment rate was 5.5% in february.

that is 3/10th lower than the reading available at the december meeting. measurements of job conditions, such as counting individuals who want and are available to work put have not actively searched recently and people who are working part-time but would rather work full-time have shown similar improvement. as we noted, the labor market continues to diminish. meanwhile the labor force participation rate and the perage of americans working or seeking work is lower than most estimates of its trend and wage growth is sluggish suggesting a weakness persist. considering progress has been achieved but room for further improvement in the labor market

continues. we continue to expect sufficient underlying strength to support on going movement in the labor market. growth of real gross domestic product appears to have slowed in the 1st quarter of this year. in part reflecting modration in household spending. in addition the recovery in the housing sector remains subdued and the growth looks to have weakened. looking ahead the committee continues to expect a moderate pace of gdp growth with robust job grains gains and lower energy prices supporting household spending. inflation has declined further below the objective. largely reflecting the lower

energy prices i just mentioned. declining import prices have restrained inflation. and in light of the recent de depreciation of the dollar it will likely to continue to do so. as the effects dissipate and the labor market improves further inflation will move gradually back toward the 2% objective over the medium term. in making this forecast we are attentive to the low levels of market based inflation compensation. the longer cast have remained stable. the committee will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully. this assessment of the outlook is reflected in the individual

economic projections submitted to this meeting by the par participants. each is based on his or her own view of appropriate monetary paul utilities. the unemployment rate projections over the next few years and in the longer run are generally a bit lower than the december projections. at the end of this year the central tendency for the unemployment rate stands at 5-5.2 percent. in line with estimates of the normal unemployment rate. committee participants see the rate declining further over the course of 2016 and 2017. for economic growth par advertise -- participants reduce projection with many sighting a

leaker outlook for exports. the central tendency of the group's projection for this year and next at 2.3-2.7 percent remains somewhat above estimates of the longer than normal growth rate. finally, fomc projects inflation to be low this year. the central tendency of the inflation projections for this year is now below 1%. down noticebly since december. as the factors holding down inflation abait the tendency rebounds to 1.7-1.9 percent next year and rises in 2017. returning to monetary policy as i noted at the outset the committee reafirmed the views

the current quarter to one percent target range is appropriate. but with improvement and further improvement in the months ahead we judge our guidance. this means we considered it unlikely that economic conditions would warrant an increase in the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of fomc meetings. well it is still to the case that we consider it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range at the april meeting such an increase could be warranted at any later meeting based on how the economy

evolves. today's modification of the forward guidance shouldn't be read as the committee decided on the timing of the initial increase for the target range and the federal funds rate. this change doesn't not mean an increase will necessarily occur in june although we cannot rule that out. as we noted in our statement, the decision to raise the target range will depend on the realized and expected progress toward objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. we base that on measures of labor market conditions indicators of inflation pressure, and inflation expectations and readings on financial and international

developments. we anticipate it will be appropriate to raise the target funds for the federal funds rate when the committee has seen further improvement in the labor market and is confidant that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. once we begin to remove policy accommodation we continue to expect that in the words of our statement even after employment and inflation are near mandate consistent levels, economic conditions may for some time warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below the levels the committee views as normal in the longer run. this guidance is consistent with the paths for appropriate policy reported by formc par advertise pants. most of them lowered the path to the federal funds rate

consistent with the downward revisions made to the projections for gdp growth and inflation as well as somewhat lower estimates of the longer run, normal unemployment rate. the median projection for the federal funds rate is just below 2% in late 2016 and rises a bit above 3% in rate 2017. the median projected rate in 2017 remains below the three and three quarters percent or so projected by most participants as the rates longer run value. even though the central tendency is slightly below that of the estimated longer run value and the central tendency for inflation is close to the 2% objective. participants provide a number of explanations for the federal

funds rate running below the longer than normal level at the time. these clue the recidivism of the financial crisis which are likely to constrain spendability and creditability for some time. the federal funds rates are conditional on participant's individual projection for economic output inflation and other factors. but our actual policy actions over time will be data dependented. accordingly, if the expansion proves to be more vigorous, inflation moves higher than expected and the appropriate path would follow a steeper and higher trajectory. conversery, if conditions were to prove weekakweak-patience,er --

weaker -- then the committee would prove to be declining. the committee's sizable holdings of longer term securities should help maintain accommodative financial positions and help with objectives. thank you. i would peabe happy to take your questions. >> hi howard stern with rioters. there are expectations of above trend growth and now growth is being down graded with international and external conditions. doesn't this indicate the feds

are facing a tougher time going at it alone than perhaps you expected last fall when this first started to be an issue? >> janet: it looks like the real gdp growth has declined somewhere below where it was for the last several quarters of last year. and that is really why the committee indicated the growth is moderated somewhat. there has been a slight downgrading of estimates of growth for this year. you mentioned the dollar. we noted that export growth has weakened probably the strong dollar is one reason for that. on the other hand the strength of the dollar also in part reflects the strength of the

u.s. economy. the strength of the dollar is also one factor that as i noted is holding down import prices and on a transtory bases at this point pushing inflation down. we are taking account of international development including prospects for growth with our trade partners in making the forecast we have more. nevertheless it is important to recognize this is not a weak forecast. taking everything into account we continue to project above trend growth. we continue to project improvement in the labor market by the end of 2015 the central tendency of the participants is they are looking for an unemployment rate that is

5.0-5.2 which is consistent with estimates of longer value. we do see considerable strength in the u.s. economy in spite of what looks like a weak 1st quarter we are projecting good confidence for the economy. >> marty, associated press. the policy statement today talks about one of the prereck you need to raise rates is confidant your inflation rate is met at 2% and that is coming from a time when you lowered the forecast on inflation which i would think would make you less confidant. what is it going to take to make you confidant about inflation? >> janet: i don't have a

mechanical answers. there is nothing where i will see we must see such and such to achieve that level of confidence. we will not look at a wide array of data. we say we want to see continued improvement in the labor market and a stronger labor market with less slack is one factor that would tend to certainly, for me increase my confidence that as slack declines inflation moves up over time. other things i will be looking at, of course the inflation data but at we said we expect inflation to remain quite low because of the depressing influence of energy price decline and the dollar. but we will be looking at the inflation data carefully to see

if we can see low levels of inflation as reflecting those influences. we will be looking at wage growth. we have not seen wage growth pickup and we may not see it pickup. i would not say either that is precondition to raising rates but if we saw wage growth pickup that would be a symptom inflation will move up. we will be wamp watching expectations. i expect this to continue and we will watch it carefully. marketbased measures of compensation fell near low. if they move up over time that will serve to increase confidence. but there are a wide range of things we will be looking at

including further improvement in the labor market. there is no simple answer. this is a judgment the committee has to make. >> john from "the wall street journal." the famous dot plot we talk about showed that officials' expectations for where the interest rates end over the years are down note. i wonder if you can explain your analysis of why they are coming down and specifically is it a reflection of what changed and the change in the fed's economic forecast or the reaction to the way it sees thing? >> janet: it is hard to know why

each participant has written down the forecast they have. but certainly there are changes in the assessments of the economy and forecasts for the economy that would point in the direction of downward adjustment in the funds rate path. for one thing you do see meaningful downward adjustment in the inflation forecast certainly for this year. in addition importantly, a number of participants have marked down their estimates of the normal longer run unemployment rate. so that range has moved down from previously 5.2-5.5 and now it moved to 5.0-5.2 and re revisions to the longer normal

run unemployment rate in a way that suggests that participants are seeing more slack in the economy now than they previously did. so i think both of those things would point to downward revision in the funds rate path. >> sam from the financial times. the experience of other central banks, japan and sweden notablely, suggest tightening earlier can be a risky process. the risk of tightening early can dramatically outweigh the risk of leaving things longer. i wonder if you could comment on the international experience and explain how that is influencing the debate with there fomc right now. >> when they are operating at the so-called lower bound it creates a situation with a

asymetrical risks. if there are adverse shocks to demand -- that push inflation and economic performance in an adverse direction, it is not possible to lower rates, of course that is the reason why for a number of years we engaged in active purchase programs. so there is situation there of risks that are supointing in the direction of waiting longer to raise the rates. i would say this is an influence we have long been aware of and are taking into account so it isn't something that comes into play now. it is a reason that we have held

our rates at 0-to a quarter percent for now roughly six years. so we are seeing an economy that is growing above trend. the labor market is improving. i think some of the head winds that have been holding the economy back are beginning to recede which is reason that the committee wants to be able to evaluate incoming data and consider when it may be appropriate to finally raise the rates. but that is a consideration we have long taken into account. >> steve from cnbc. i don't hear any quanatative -- quanatative measures -- which is

unusual for a fed that was providing metrics on employment and about when it would move with rates. it is now policy to keep the market guessing and is it thought you would have better policy from less certainty about the path of interest rates? and a kind of related question if you will. could you see raising rates while the committee still judges the risks are balanced? >> janet: in terms of certainty and providing metrics we provided a metric or a threshold of six and a half percent several years ago and told market participants and the public that we wouldn't consider it appropriate to raise rates as long as the unemployment rate was higher than that level as long as inflation was well

contained. but our policy needs to be data dependent and we need to respond to incoming data and our assessment of incoming data in terms of where we think the economy is heading and how close we are to our objectives. so can we provide certainty? of course we cannot provide certainty because we are not certain what the data will look like and how the economy will evolve and to achieve our objectives we need to watch the data continually reformulate our best guesses or forecast of where the economy is going and respond appropriately. and we cannot provide certainty and shouldn't provide certainty because economic developments

will unfold that are uncertain. what participants should be doing is looking at incoming data just as we are and forming their expectations for where policy will be going and should be going just exactly as we will be doing by attempting to understand economic developments as they unfold. and that is what we are trying to say in this statement that the that is what we will be doing going forward and don't think it is appropriate to provide calendar-based guidance. [inaudible question] >> janet: risk to what? [inaudible question] >> janet: i guess we said the risk of the outlook are balanced. and i mean certainly we could raise rates in the situation

where the risks are balanced. we need to see as we have said we want to see further improvement in the labor market and we want to feel reasonable and confidant the economy is on a trajectory where we will receive the 2% inflation objective. >> danny apple from "the new york times." there seems to be a lot riding on the survey of expectations but they are not a precise instrument and don't tell the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 and expectations are stable even through the changes. can you talk about why the fomc has confidence those measures are accurate reflections of where inflation is likely to go and whether the concerns you talked about market base measures correspond to the

information you have on survey-based measures. >> janet: survey-based measures are not perfect in the mean or median of those measures often and don't lineup well with actual inflation so they seem to be bias. nevertheless, they seem to be useful at predicting movement and inflation. because we think inflation expectations are a determinant of price setting we need to look at the best data we can even if it is not perfect to gauge the expectations. we look at survey measures. the fact that survey measures are stable even if they are stable at levels consistent with levels the central bank watts to achieve that is not a guarantee

inflation ever time is going to move to be consistent with the expectations. an example is japan where for many years the household and businesses expected positive inflation but there was a consistent undershoot. this isn't a single metric that is perfect but it is one we look at. we look at expectations based on market differences between nominal or tip yields. they are informative but can move around for reasons pertaining to liquidity in the treasury market and the tip market and because of changing perceptions of inflation risk. they are not a pure