s fairly limited. and at least once congress has provided present with the means to undertake combat the present role is quite broad. but i think a more useful way to think about the issue concerns congresses ongoing practical control over the funding of combat and over legislation directing and restricting certain military affairs. that's a congress expressed its view regarding combat in vietnam, somalia, lebanon and the scope of combat even in the case of whether the formal authorization. as in iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere. congress has at times overstepped its will but has tremendous powers here. that's a framework to assess the current aumf debate. you have a president who has already asserted authority engage in warfare against the islamic state based at least on the 2001 aumf and those attacks are ongoing as we speak. he has proposed and aumf that would arbitrarily limit the

authority he is currently exercising and impose a scope of combat limitation and a time limitation. that's what you might expect from a very progressive center not commander-in-chief. so congress already has the ongoing power to declined to fund or to otherwise limit combat against the islamic state and they can do so in response to conditions as when they unfold over the next years. as congress does for every other military conflict. to commit to those limits in advance adds nothing to the president's power, may limit his successors power and there's congresses time on oversight rule. it's bad policy and its worst constitutional practice. next is the treaty power. by providing for the sin its role in consent decrees, the cost to should also provides the congressional of a binding commit tran the me into with other countries. now, as the professor outlined

the president has broad authority here and congress can accept to support alternative ways that agreements can be reached including the fast-track authority or acquiescence in unilateral executive action. but congress can always assert its central role. so the open letter from senator cotton and 46 other senators should be understood as protecting the constitutional role provided by the treaty clause, and is reminded the president that his powers to enter binding agreements or to acting areas governed by statute are subject in part at least to what congress determines. you might quibble with how the letter was raised or to whom it was addressed but made it very important and legitimate constitutional point. the congressional rule is even brought in this area and extends when international law as -- including on the president. in 2008 the supreme court issued one of the most important decisions ever in the area

nadine versus tex. that decision established that congress must have a role whenever any international grid or international law principle has affect within our constitutional system. either treaty consent to by the senate must crusade has that effect on them as the legislation passed by both houses. we may several have international law obligations for what those are worth at the time. but that's all they are endless congress has acted. so where does that leave us? a case can be made that the president might benefit from some traditional coordinated congressional action over foreign affairs. i challenge you to name even one key alliance that has been improved over the last six years. one adversary who thinks harder before acting against our interests. one agreement where we haven't given away much more than we have received, or one fraught area of the globe that is more

peaceful than it was before. congress has always been a coordinate partner in the country's international affairs. we have the president has been departing shortly from that position until recently unwilling to defend his prerogative. is confusing a leading executive role in foreign affairs with an exclusive role but now we have congress objecting as i've indicated doing so on strong constitutional grounds. this just strengthens our constitutional processes and the framers were right probably improves or international relations, too. thanks tom. >> i agree with what richard just said and, in fact, i think senator portman put his finger on it that cooperation between the branches just makes us stronger in every which way. talk about leverage in the iranian negotiation the acting is always that has been provided and a lot of kind of what

happened. i just want to make three points. i think for the present to limit himself as commander-in-chief with respect to isis is done. my own views i agree with the broadsword commander-in-chief power. i think he should exercise it. i would make two points. this is a legal system we have people say constitutional law is almost as a guest international but it's not. it's a body of law and i think it really come editing democrats and republicans, liberals and consumers alike should know that that this is a checks and balance system and it isn't democrat versus republican. in many ways it's congress versus the president. it's often the house versus the sunni. this is an intricate system that has worked extremely well. 1.0 is that the checksum checks and balances and the fort affairs area, the war area is different from the domestic. i think it's relatively clear the president has more power to

initiate with respected diplomatic matters and which the dogs and i agree with richard has authorized and i think there should be a light switch should be turned on by congress. once light switches on he is the light. the commander-in-chief conducts or others but i think we shouldn't come it's different from the domestic area. >> i think we have time for a few questions. so way in. >> i think i can make myself heard. [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm wondering if you could comment on the right of the president to make secret agreements or to key parts of agreements secret? and if so what ability there is of congress or for that matter the courts to require the exposure of any such agreements?

>> i think part of the answer needs to be secret from whom? you know there's a difference between making a matter an agreement that is between heads of state that's revealed to relevant congressional leaders and one that is revealed at large to the public. and i think in terms of the professor's point in defense of it in terms of what they are treated as binding or not. there are agreements between heads of state united states president and others, other heads of state that are not disclosed widely all the time. those may be the equivalent of handshake agreement. they may be phone calls where someone says i need something someone else as i understand, and that is a secret agreement. now, the president is, for the reasons i described, well

advised to be coordinating closely with the relevant members of the house or senate leadership, the intelligence committees the foreign affairs or armed service committee as the case may be. and in certain contexts, particularly related to covert action is required to do so. and that may or may not be done through an agreement or an understanding between states. i hope i haven't put the question to much but it is pretty common that neither the courts nor the public will know of a broad range of agreements. and that's always been the case and probably always will. >> we can be a responsible, so there is legislation the case act which requires executive to turn over all international agreements to the house and senate committees. i'm not sure it's been honored and the question is whether it

is an international agreement. so there's legislation pushing the president on that subject. of course it commits any kind of domestic effect like it requires taxes, appropriations, or an effect on sanctions inevitably it's going to be public. my own feeling if i were asked by the president and even including covert action i think would be wise to share everything with the congress on to the three, of course it happens a great do anyway, share with the leadership and members of congress who are not in the leadership of check sometimes i think we've heard congresswoman brooks colleague on a slightly in another way. my own feeling is that it's going to get out anyway. we there are agreements we've never even heard of, so that would be my view. i think someone said whatever you do, if you're in government be ready to have as a headline in the "washington post," or maybe under the fold not a headline. that's just my own personal

view, as a matter of judgment. >> if i could click on one thing. i don't want to be misunderstood and i may have missed spoken or was, the covert action example was there is a statute that does require disclosure to congress. there's a very naughty separation of powers issue about whether the president is, in fact, bound by the statue and whether unilateral power to undertake certain actions or to have discretion over the breadth of that disclosure, but i wasn't working that out as an exception. >> heather heidelbaugh? >> i was wondering if you might speak to the recent call the president made to benjamin netanyahu following his win? i'm not sure what happened during the call but from the press reports it appears that the president said to mr. netanyahu the relationship between our countries is going

to change. and i was wondering if you thought that was outside the bounds of what is permissible conversations? >> i have to confess i'm kind of an executive box i think clearly not. i teach this course at georgetown with two others. one was a deputy counsel to president ford general lazarus. the other was vice president cheney's chief, deputy chief of staff. and the president is the community but i think is more than a. i think there's no question but that the president of the united states can speak to anyone about anything. i would say by the the way with respect to secrecy, it would probably be unwise to disclose all the content right away unless it's a question of political decision. that would be my own view. >> i entirely agree with it. it's not improper for one head of state to communicate or telegraph a change of policy to another. but perhaps part of your

question, the israel-u.s. relationship obviously does implicate a range of congressional interest along the lines of some of what i've been discussing. congress isn't without its powers to keep the president from filling whatever threat or indication he may have made. >> i just might add something. this is pretty want to a lot of people. the president has these diplomatic powers that includes recognition of foreign governments but that doesn't mean that congress has to be quiet. the executive was moving towards the recognition of the prc people's republic of china over taiwan. many people in congress of both parties didn't like it. there were endless senate resolutions, congress resolution saying don't do it. if you do it will cause trouble for it, something else, hold up appointments if you want. that is part of our system. osha the checks and balances.

>> -- those are the checks and balances. >> i would like to ask it was a follow-up to the question about secret agreements and doesn't the claims of executive privilege also weigh in there as far back as george washington refusing to give up papers regarding the jay treaty, you know with regard to claiming executive privilege. we're talking about secret agreements doesn't executive privilege also come into play there? >> it does and i think a indicated in my earlier answer there is a broad scope in practice where that's been the case but that the president is extremely well advised to be coordinating with congress where congress is going to be you know interested acting upon information relevant for future foreign policy. and you know, what ever

discretion the president may have ultimately to withhold that is a matter of the council between congress and the president that swirls around all these issues. you are right that was one of the for tonsils but congress has won some of those, too. >> in fact george washington who was a commanding presence i think of the device and consent function of the treaty went to the senate, presented a treaty i think he was planning, was ticked off by what congress said and dissent i will be dark if i ever come back again. that's what president washington said. whether that's good practice or not i don't know. >> we will have to come back again to this. thank you very much. [applause] the interesting part of having these legal scholars here talking about the power of the senate and the senate stability to require the president to do certain things is of course

having our next speaker who was sitting in the back of the room listening to them talk about the powers of the senate might exercise with respect to the president. i'm very pleased to call to the podium our good friend john wright, general counsel at the rnc. also member of the board of governors with myself homages ascent rnla member it's exciting for us to this very close relationship with the r&d and have john here. so john. spent thank you, tom. and it is my great privilege to introduce my senator this morning, great tennessee congressman davy crockett once adopted as his slogan, first be sure you're right, then go ahead. and i think that could apply to bob corker. because that's the way he approaches the issues. checks his facts thinks seriously about the underlying problems, and doesn't act until he's convinced he's on the right path.

senator corker, i've had the privilege of watching tasha of watching senator corker move through the political process. and he lived out the american dream. he started with a pickup truck and $8000 formed a construction company that became a multimillion dollar business operating in 18 states. he then became commissioner of finance for the state of tennessee where he estimated members of the legislature with its breathtaking candor and transparency am apparently very easily astounded. [laughter] or apparently transparency and candor are a rare thing in finance. he was elected mayor of chattanooga where he presided over an incredible revitalization of the city's urban core, and then he was elected to the united states senate during the democratic wave election of 2006, becoming the sole member of the republican freshman class of that year. he was reelected last cycle with

65% of the vote in tennessee. he is now -- [applause] >> he now represents us as the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. ladies and gentlemen off corker. [applause] -- bob corker. [applause] >> john, thank you and thank you for your longtime friendship ideas, since 1994. and for all you do on behalf of all of us up here but in our state and for your continued sound judgment. i'm thrilled to be with all of you today. i think both of you know i spent most of my life in business and even though y'all are republican attorney i still get a little nervous with a roomful of attorneys by thank you for what you do on our behalf around the country and i know that making sure that we have fair and free

elections in the things you carry out are very, very important. i heard a little bit of the panel before i stepped to the podium, and thank you. what i'd like to do this point is make a few opening comments and then i would much rather hear from you relative to questions about foreign policy or whatever it is you want to talk about. and on that note don, how long am i supposed to be here? [inaudible] >> no, no, no. how long? okay. let me just start by saying that akin to the united states senate having been a person who built shopping centers around the country over time, acquired real estate and did some development. love my community. was a very involved simply from a young age. so i ended up being mayor of our city. really as a civic endeavor. it wasn't something that had anything to do with politics at

all. gophers came down and recruited me to run for his seat as he was, not his seat but the cd was occupying at the time when he was leaving. i have zero foreign policy experience. i have done some recruited a map of our state and on behalf of our city where i went to japan or someplace like that working on trying to lure jobs to our community. very strictly i had zero background in that regard. i was a business guy, spent almost no time in life on history. since that time i came on the foreign relations committee really just a broad myself, to make myself a better senator. i have camped on the committee very quickly realized how important was to our nation. and serving to the world that the united states lead. and now i think i've been to 63 or four countries, many of them over and over and over. all of you understand that in life you spend 80% of the time

on the problems, 20% of the time on the other things. and so constantly i've been in the middle east and other places. i will to you that without u.s. leadership the world just isn't as good a place as it should be. it just isn't. you know, being u.s. leadership does not mean that some people sort of create these straw men it doesn't mean necessarily being the world's policeman but being the leader of this world as we are, and establishing playing that role and actually leading is very, very important. i want to say, i will make a few comments about the last few years and my disappointment in that regard. to me one of the most disappointing moments in my service on the foreign relations committee and here in the senate for the last eight years and three months was during that

timeframe at the end of august and the beginning of september 2013 when the president's red line had been crossed and what they should have said it or not he said it. in my opinion as a republican and with a democratic president that was something that needed to be backed. aside from the fact that what assad was doing in this area was totally wrong entity pushed away. we have planned a 10 hour operation, roughly. 10 our military operation. and the senate foreign relations committee authorized it. on a bipartisan basis. the president turned away from that effort, and i just want to tell you, to me that was the worst moment in the figures eight years that i've been here relative to our u.s. credibility. and our ability to demonstrate the leadership that i was referring to. it was a moment in time when the free syrian army session had

some momentum and had we gone ahead and conducted that quote 10 hour operation we could have enhanced that momentum. we could have really pushed assad back. we could have shown that we were standing with them. and instead what we showed we showed that very quickly we were willing to jump into putin's lap which is what we did. i know that sounds very pejorative but that's what we did. putin gave us an out relative to the chemical weapons, and i think putin learned a great deal from that. remember, our ambassador, ambassador ford in syria was chewing on this opposition in the beginning. cheering them on. and in the time of need we were not there. later we're going to train and equip the free syrian army will lose, whatever you want to call them. we're going to send them trucks. we did any of those things.

we left the many. i've gotten to the point now where seriously i don't want to go back to the refugee camps in turkey or jordan because when i got to look people in the eye that i know we let down as a nation. again i think putin learned from that anyway came to ukraine remember, ukraine is a place that back in 1994 having been part of the soviet union had 1240 nuclear warheads. go back and say that, 1240 nuclear warheads they had. we entered into an agreement with them that we would respect their territorial sovereignty, so did russia, so did uk with the budapest memorandum. they gave them up and do you think rush would have invaded ukraine today have been 1240 warheads? i do not think so. but we also chaired ukraine on. we were the ones that urged them -- cheered -- come west.

and here again in the time of need. dino today we still have to provide ukraine with crimea being gone, with russian soldiers clearly being on the character, russian artillery russia equipment but we still today, today do not provide them with operational intelligence, real-time intelligence about where russians are in their own country. we still today have been unwilling, even though unanimously the united states senate and house we passed a bill to provide them defensive legal support. we still today have been unwilling to do that. so you can understand why people in congress on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about this negotiation with iran. very concerned about what we might be going. and on a bipartisan basis i know there's some discussion about what congress can do prior to becoming to the podium. we created a piece of

legislation that basically says congress has the right to review the iranian deal prior to the congressionally mandated sanctions being lifted. so since your attorneys in the room and sent you understand things like this in great detail, there are three sets of sanctions right now that we have against iran. there are the u.n. security council sanctions, and i know we have a lot of article ii people in this room even though the title of this as i understand is the embryo presidency the fact is that look, republicans have always sort of deferred to the administration, to the executive branch for foreign policy issues. i agree with some of the speakers that on the other hand, congress has its appropriate role. administrations have negotiated the u.n. security council sanctions. and it's my belief that the administration does have the ability on the own the court to deal with those sanctions. the executive branch also has

their own executive sanctions that they put in place against iran but and i believe obviously they have the right to deal with those as they choose but on the other hand, there are congressionally mandated sanctions that congress put in place but as a matter that congress put them in place with the administration in essence kicking and screaming all along the way saying that somehow or another this is going to be damaging to our relationship with iran. i think most of you would believe that is those sanctions that actually brought iran to the table. so i've crafted a piece of legislation, significant bipartisan support, which basically says if the administration comes to a final deal, by the way, a the final deal would not happen until the end of june. that's when you all the details and all the annexes. we would just ask them to let that agreement lay before us for 60 days let us read all these

classified annexes, let us have the classified briefings that we would need to have and then let congress on the congressionally mandated sanctions, the one we put in place have the right to either approve, disapprove, or take no action. if i was the white house i would embrace that. i would say i want congress to be with me. i want this agreement to stand the test of time but as a matter fact i would say instead of all this back and forth that you are seeing right now they said look we agree. we agree that since you brought them to the table and since you know you provided us with a national security waiver that we thought they would use in a short period of time if something good, i think you ought to know they plan to suspend those sanctions to way beyond the time they are in office. so we are saying no we would just like to be able to win. now look, they are pushing back

some of my senator friends, i was in budget hearings all yesterday. we passed one out of committee and many are being lobbied heavily by the administration. i look at this and say this is, in fact exactly the kind of role that congress ought to play special on the congressionally mandated sanctions that we put in place. i believe in spite of some the drama we've had over the last two weeks internally, i believe ultimately we will have a veto proof majority to make that happen. and to the previous speakers, i believe that's exactly the kind of role that congress needs to play. i want to close with this. i really do believe that we have an opportunity in congress especially in the united states senate to move ourselves more closely to the place that people are ritually thought congress was going to play in our

governance system. i really believe that. i have to say, bob menendez who has been the democratic leader in foreign relations, was chairman of until we won his last election, i have to say he's done an outstanding job in my opinion of elevating the foreign relations committee. i'm trying to build on that. i believe the united states, the foreign relations committee in the senate has been the place, if you will, for decades where respect has been given because of the sober, thoughtful way that we went about our business. and i just want to kill you it's a huge, huge privilege. i was at an event last weekend with a lot of my old friends from colleague, and you know how those things go, a lot of fun. i'm glad there were no tweets. [laughter] but they kept coming up to me they kept coming up to me and

saying thank you thank you so much for what you do. they heard all week in the things that are going back and forth between the white house and other senators, and they just kept coming up and saying thank you. and i want to say to all of you and especially to john and linda and those from tennessee, thank you. i mean, what a privilege it is to serve in the united states senate, to find myself after eight years and three months as chairman of the foreign relations committee. and all i can say to all of you who put so much time and effort into making sure that the integrity and what we as the republican party do across our country, i wake up every day trying to make those kinds of decisions and conduct myself in a manner that will call the respect that should be shown to the foreign relations committee but also to the united states in general to be there and to cause our citizens, cause our citizens

to have faith in the system that each of you wakes up to each day and tries to defend. so thank you and i look forward to your questions. [applause] .. and it would be apparent that the legislation you are pursuing as meritorious as it is may very well fall into that category. so even if that were passed and

even if were passed over the veto of the president it could be expected, regretfully, to not enforce those that he simply definitely with. what do you think congress is rolled then it's in making sure that the president actually obeys the law? >> first of all i don't want to be counting our chickens before they hatch. the first is to get 67 votes, get the house to pass it. this is something that there is time to make happen. the final deal again will not occur until at least the end of june. my guess is this week one of the reasons we moved the markup rack until the first part of april is i'm pretty sure the administration sending a signal to say though, we didn't really mean march 24th. we really meant the end of

march. so we've got some work to do first. i cannot calculate actions based on them not carried out the laws. as far as what we do from a host of issues, was not the things that are based, if you will, to use the term thrown around here a lot, they expect as somehow if the president doesn't do things that we believe we should be doing and they expect us to do things on the senate floor to affect that. especially in the minority that is quite a problem. if you raise an issue on the senate floor, especially being a minority professor disapprove of the action and you were voted down because there's more democrats than republicans, but basically built a case for them

same outcome of the senate was on our side so we have that problem. now we can vote again. don't look the real way that dealing with it is to the court system. so you find a party someplace in the country. you figure out a way to support that it breached party wherever they are in the country. you call the case, through the system, which is exactly with happening right now in the health care bill. it is actually what is happening right now in the immigration issue and is slow and very unsatisfactory to quote the base, but there's really no other way to deal with it. if you've got a suggestion tell me. it is that old slow rule of law way that you deal with things. and again it's not particularly satisfying to the american people especially those who oppose the president has done like i do, but it's the way the works. if you've got some other suggestion i would love to hear

it. apparently you don't. [laughter] >> i have a client friend who recently toured curtis dan kurdish areas in iraq and came back to say they are in desperate need of arms that they can defend themselves from deo. >> -- isis. >> avaricious and afghanistan with the head of the peshmerga. wonderful friends of the united states, have been in the beginning. the people right now on the ground we can most depend upon. when kirkuk/ it was the kirkuk that came and took it back which by the way interestingly put a chat in their hands on

future negotiations because they now control the oil they used to be iraqis. so we will deal with that issue down the road. that will make its way into negotiations over time. i don't think it's quite as bad as the gentleman laid out. they come see us often and when they came to see me here in washington i was pretty upset about the delivery schedule of arms and weapons. a set route and on the ground generals that i know well and generals who i know have an affinity towards talking to guys like me and telling us the truth, i don't think it's quite as bad as people say it is. the deliveries going into bag dad. there were stories that were taken a month or so for the equipment to get out to curtis fan. i think it is not that case at all. will be over time and there's a movement towards the end supply

them directly? my guess is that will be the case. i will say we've got to be a little concerned about things getting out of balance. and he sat back. when i think it is not a balance, i think we still wanted to be one country. a big part of our friends encourage lobbying the things they are lobbying for if they potentially could be building a case for separation as you well know which is problematic on the turkish side, too. we've got to be pretty judicious and thoughtful about the way we go about this. i stayed in our billion-dollar embassy there because it's the only place you can state that is safe. and i've met with a body who certainly was a breath of fresh air for maliki who was just so terrible as prime minister.

either way, maliki with the prime minister we helped put in place. we need to be honest about that. he was terrible. at every single thing we are doing right now, everything is for the conflict. everything. and i support obviously what we are doing to route a isis out. but every day we wake up in iraq that are 3100 that are there, making the country a better place. the parliament is totally infiltrated. because force is truly a celebrity. he's now with the shia militia as they do the things they are doing to push back. we know that's been stalled a little bit right now. it is a pretty sad day to know

of all the lands that were dismembered, the lives were lost, people dealing today with psychological issues. it is sad to be here today and understand where it can doing and that need to be done, but we are making the country every single day of better place for iran. >> mr. chairman, how can foreign states in our union turned red like tennessee? we need some counsel here. >> i'm sorry what did he say? [inaudible] >> yeah. that is more in your line of work.

look, i think it's -- i will get back to my line of work. i think for us to continue to be successful we have to show that we can legislate responsibly and conduct ourselves in an appropriate way. to cause other states that may today be blue to make them turn purple and red, it is our responsibility as people elect into positions of responsibility to carry ourselves that causes the nation to look to us in a manner that says goodbye to have more people like us. as far as states turning in that direction i will leave it to all of you who want a daily basis are a lot more involved than i am. >> senator, and gruner from virginia. i'm wondering if you could shed

any insight into the administration's refusal to provide weapons to the ukrainian. >> i'm going to say this one more time. we passed a bill to do that unanimously in the senate. unanimously. first of all i wake up every day not with the thought that i'm going to get the administration. i don't. that is not my thought. they act differently. they think differently, but the executive branch, let's face it carries out foreign policy. what can i do to move in a positive direction? i don't say this to throw out names but i talked yesterday with the vice president. i talked yesterday with their secretary of state is taking

place in europe. my point is i try to work with i understand they are in charge today. i'm disappointed often. every now and then i have to send an e-mail to the chief of staff and just say you guys are just so hard to help. they just are. to your question, i think this president has never ever been comfortable being commander-in-chief. he's just not comfortable. i know the decisions you make as commander-in-chief are heavy and more complicated than meets the eye. there's a lot of things going on in the background. he has made decision memo after

decision memo after decision memo sitting on the desk. i know they are there. and he just cannot bring himself to do it. in his mind and a few people around him, you've got to understand his body up advisors is very small. not the people that the titles you understand. very small group of people. what they have been concerned about since day one is if they take actions like that you will cause russia to move ahead when it's just the opposite. by the way, there've been some stories about how they've been embarrassed that putin continues to do what they do because they keep talking nicely to him. [laughter] that they have such difficulties , such difficulties number one making a decision.

and when they make a decision, it is very difficult to carry it out. i know we were going to deliver trucks. you remember him from way back. the general area we decided would be the leader of the free syrian army that we were going to support. it took 10 months and months just to get trucks. we have great difficulty in making decisions and after they make them and try to execute it is like a gang that cannot shoot straight. they cannot make it happen. it is very disappointing and hurts our credibility tremendously. i don't think any of us think that ukraine can decide to take ukraine. they can take ukraine, but at least raise the price. at the show there is a degree of support they are. to me it's something very

important. we've been unwilling to do it. yesterday they found they showed the decision they agree to a long time ago and that is to train the national guard finally, finally. so many times this administration makes decisions after that point in time when it would've been effective effective. you understand? said that window is closed. the other day we had chairman of the joint chiefs ashcroft or as secretary kerry. they sent over to syria. you all know we have a train and equip program where we are training syrians outside of the country and we are going to bring them back to tackle isis. we are going to train 5000 over time. one of the things they are not willing to do yet 220000

people are dead in syria partially. some of the things we didn't do what we made a difference. a lot of dead people. so many names displays. they haven't mastered the authorization when most people come into syria after they have been trained they don't have the authorization to protect them. again they are worried that his provocative and i'll go back to the issue of fresh again. they don't be provocative. heidi on mac im going to steal the mike. -- can you address young men? there's another 120 dead in a mosque bombing. [inaudible] >> one of the so we have this

agree that right now with their that is a short-term agreement. we have alleviated some of the sanctions on iran as we've been going through this interim agreement to allow them to get $770 million of their money trapped overseas. in other words, they sell their oil and it's obviously hurt their economy. they could do some kind of trade. again, they have been relieved of a little bit of money. they've got a little bit of money coming in. there's 180 billion. and so the concern that many people like me have if we fail in these negotiations, in other words we don't do some things that keeps iran from getting a nuclear weapon. either way you will understand

what the real premise this? we are going to do an agreement with her plan that we think holds then in great concern about covert activities, grave concern about research and development. as a matter of fact our negotiators have told us their negotiators can pass a lie detector test that you were no previous military dimensions to brand's nuclear activities, which we all know is not true. we know they were involved in moving towards a nuclear weapon and up until 2003 when they became nervous about what we're doing in iraq and maybe would do the same thing to them. think about that. the negotiators we are negotiating with were totally unaware of the efforts because they were taking place through the rmg. again, this is what make people

nervous. i get back to the yemen issue. not only have a continuing to develop missile delivery systems, some of the most sophisticated in the world not covered by this agreement but they are the biggest exporter of terrorism. what we are concerned about is we get a bad deal. either way the deal is predicated on the fact of retainer. they will change their ways. seriously. that is what is shared with us. we hope during that they will change the way they are operating. it is my belief they think over the next 10 years any case i -- catch up in a weakened state they can carry on activities. to me that is bs and put the negotiation is all about. back to the point of yemen. they obviously supported hamas. they support hezbollah. they are destabilizing the

region. so with being a screwdriver turn away from the nuclear weapon obviously proliferation by saudi arabia and other places that won't develop their own. they will bite off the shelf or in another country and so then you've created this proliferation. then make it back to yemen. he is also relieved $130 billion available to them to continue doing the destabilizing terrorist activities. so that is why the stakes here are so high. if i was president of the united states and i was negotiating an agreement with iran that has this type of geopolitical impact far more than what is happening right now with isis

far more important. i would certainly want to pass this congress inside a stiff arming congress and keeping them out the way they are. thank you all very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> i think you guys shared with me the fact that we cut up or at least i could've listened to senator corker for quite a bit longer than we have with the number of our speakers. that will probably take place now. i will bite to the podium showing young -- show in. is

>> the vice president for rla, the managing partner at ernst & young. i will keep you up and keep everybody moving. >> good morning everyone. i was vice president of finance i want to thank you for joining us and i want to take a moment to encourage your support for this organization. the rnla is the only to promote fair and honest elections. the training that's what we provide for election integrity is essential to our democracy. we encourage or support and to give us your donations please

go to our website. now it is my distinct honor to introduce robert ehrlich the former governor of the state of maryland. to give justice to his many comp which meant to be impossible in the time allotted, so i will just give you a few highlights starting with the fact when he was elected governor of the very blue state of maryland in 2002 he was the first republican governor to be elected census spiro agnew. that was 36 years before. indeed, governor ehrlich broke that blue ice for governor larry hogan. his record as governor was one of success and multiple achievements including turning a $4 billion deficit he inherited into a $2.3 billion surplus.

this progrowth policies led to 100,000 new private sector jobs. he provided strong support for public schools while offering maryland's first public charter school law. importantly for those of us who love to be near and on the water, governor ehrlich offered the chesapeake day restoration fund act. the chesapeake bay foundation calls this legislation the most important environmental achievement in 20 years. before becoming governor, robert ehrlich served four terms in the u.s. congress. he holds a bachelor's degree from princeton where he was captain of the football team and a law degree from wake forest. we understand the governor is thinking about what has made no

decision on running for president in 2016. and is now on a listening tour to see how people react in the pews. please join me in giving a very warm welcome for governor robert ehrlich. [applause] >> thanks, everybody. appreciate that. say you want to get everybody up and tell them to get more members. i am doing it right now. hey your dues. thank you for having me today. i have good news and bad manners. it was advertised that my book will be here today. we will have a book signing afterwards. the bad news is the book is not here. the good news is we've tracked the guy down. the more bad news is we found out he's a democrat.

it was ordered about two days ago and it will be here shortly. so i'm going to throw some politics into policy converts. we lawyers love to talk about them when republicans love to talk about the debt relief federal reform and the problems of obamacare entitlement reform and we tend to talk about the substantive issues and we typically listening to conservative radio. we win the think tank battle suddenly a pretty good at winning elections. we are pretty good at finding nonpresidential election cycles because our base tends to show up in large numbers. and yet, not the case of presidential elections. too often we lose the big one. too often we doubt the numbers

and will give you to them in a minute. some of these numbers may be surprising but we've lost five out of the last six presidential election cycles. when you add the numbers up, it is minus 26 million. 338 million minus 26 million. it is the electorate in 2016 looks like it did in 2004 would present it pushed on, is the race, we lose. the country is changing. that is a fact. those of us in denial aren't fortunately on the dinosaur watch. so it is a pretty serious election. i love what we can talk about serious elections. every politician says this is the most important election ever

because that person's name is usually on the ballot. we said that in 2012 with a great man named mitt romney on as our nominee. great person. has been, leader. we saw what was done to him. these numbers are out there. it was sort of embarrassing to us as sensitive people who like to talk about these issues and that republicans generally are pretty out there with good ideas. we look at the other side and what they sell, what the market and it is attacking large and successful degrading wealth, spending endlessly, practicing the politics of yes always more. remember vice president -itis quote on by the shuttle ready

stimulus didn't work so good. $1.2 trillion. it wasn't large enough. it is never large enough. there's never enough government, never enough spending. never enough preemption ever. that is sort of what we deal with. we see the exploitation of class warfare with joe the plumber. we see the enhancement of dependence and marginalization of independence with belittling sovereignty. remember the great speech of the president. what if republicans want to build it boat on the southern border. one political party in this country is fast. not every member of that party tends to treat sovereignty as a somewhat benign issue. so we see the main democrats were in federalism declaring war on women retreating from

allies and placating animated greeting power vacuums from behind. and this wins. this is the winning formula. i think is a party is lawyers, leaders thought we need to understand this. we can't just go in our little cocoon and celebrate 2014 when we had an agenda that we are not them, both for us. and networks typically. we are not bad works in all the election cycles. certainly not the case of 2014. so our challenge is lawyers, as leaders is as follows in my view. we need to call them out. we need not to back down. we know we are right.

we need to expose the playbook. here is what we are really bad act as republicans. we tend to go out on principle and when they are successful we forget to remind the people that we were successful. we don't take credit very well. the press typically hopes to do that. welfare reform. cavemen and 94 with all of this crazy majority makers and our big experiment is federal welfare reform and it works by any measure. time. people forget that. medicare part e. let's go market orientation. look at the cbo numbers had originally passed the bill. look at what it costs today. dramatically decreased because republicans drafted the bill and

focus on more market competitions. unemployment insurance connection. the big debate last year. classic warfare. the republicans want to throw us in the street. they have poor people if we are going to go beyond two years and if you don't support us, you hate poor people as they party and the republicans stood for and took all the abuse. and guess what happened? labor force participation increased because there was a line drawn and we haven't taken credit for that at all. charter schools. we out for charter schools revolution. and ireland we pay the first charter schools the 51st state to pass one. that's a joke. but teachers union and the entrenched bureaucracy in a

completely -- not completely but many schools by any measure dysfunctional. many minority kids brown and black kids being deprived of their constitutional rights. as lawyers or need to pay attention to this issue. we brought this around the country and we are allowing for kids regardless of their color to punch their ticket the way our tickets were punched from poor working class backgrounds when we got a break. we should be in the business of hitting brakes. we should be in the business of all of the above when it comes to dysfunctional schools. as i went around the state of maryland at the time i said you know what we can talk about the niceties, but the fact is it is a moral issue because multi-general poverty is a constitutional issue because we

deprived these kids have constitutional rights. if i didn't hit anybody on that stuff, almost levels, it is a public safety issue because these kids will end up if we continue to send them to schools. your neighborhood will be less safe. so we own these issues. the grey purple issue the koch brothers and george soros agree on something. republican governors around the country, the fact that it is a lot of folks on the right today. as a member of the legislature in the 80s i remember he debases the increasing defense says in order to give increasingly juvenile offenders feudal system and i was the big debate around the country.

we are going to get tough. lock them up and throw away the key. 15, 20 to 25 years some five years on about you you better pay attention to it. it's been led by republican governors. republican members of the senate and house as well. this is our issue. it is not counterintuitive. it is justice and fiscal sanity as well. does anybody remember the last party balance the federal budget? hours. under john keepsake as chairman of the house budget committee. actually announced for three straight years. so we really need is a party, as lawyers to get the word out. we are not good at taking credit. we're typically. i go back to the presidential

election cycle last session. we have are the finest deals we've ever had for president. gives away most of the wealth wildly successful ceo. although leadership skills and we have silly stuff like dogs on cars and mitt romney intercepting birth control pills. that stuff works. it is our father for. it can't work anymore. 2014 works because we said were not coming. when everybody shows up we have to message. it has to be out there. we talked about her well. we should be ready. i think we are going to be ready with freedom alternatives. once the supreme court reads what the statute says. an immigration bill sovereignty

and security reflecting our values. senator rubio deserves credit with the bill out there. all of the above are kids that dysfunctional schools and knowledge you can play a part in that. criminal justice top about fatherlessness. 50 years since moynihan. go read moynihan again. please. he was right in every respect every respect. he got torched by the last. icon of the democratic party. read those words and they are true today with respect to all families and as a result we are paying a big price as the culture. finally, dave camp terrific chairman of the ways and means and he had the guts of the

republican chairman to throw out they are and all the aeros came not in and he knew it would. comprehensive tax reform. we know is the highest tax rate in the world and the jobs offshore and we all know about manufacturing down to 12 million jobs and everybody says my god we are going to fix it. it never happen aired in 1986 ronald reagan sat down with tip o'neill. if president ladd, what a concept, if president ladd and it got worked out. and now i will close with this. we tend to think about this stuff. i read "the wall street journal" like you all. editorial pages talk about preferences, corporate welfare. in a flat tax in the room? raise your hand.

but the fact of it is if that is your denominator, every extra provision, every extra statute every extra preference we discuss is some form of corporate welfare. everyone. any realtors in the room? charitable deduction? anybody give money to the chair? from an enterprise to your college 529, everything legislators do mostly these days is to pass a preference to get a public policy goal done. that is the definition of politicians today. that is what you do. so when we start -- we started this process as a party, as a

leadership party that counts, we need to really figure this stuff out. oil and gas syntaxes. you name your preference. you name your profession. but the fact is we are not going to have a flat tax problem but we are at some point soon when a republican slate, with a sudden down tax codes that contains preferences that get the policy outcome, we've won. bio home give charity to my site a business in the press area, whatever it is. as we debate all this with sort out the ones they really don't work. let's stay away from the term special interests. i hate it. every room i walk in says to his pastoral interests.

then they ask every kid to identify with the parents do for a living. all lawyers, all teachers. is that everybody has a special interest. let's stop this silly stuff. we have to figure out the tax codes that really does create jobs. the bottom line to all of this is rebuilt that and this party is really building. and is it okay to cling to your god and religion in western values and federalism in constitution. [applause] an opportunity society ways a party and that is not easy in this area and obviously all this is available if we will fight

for it. thank you off for having me today. i'm almost out of time. jc boggs, are you there? my partner loves this group, spends more time. you should be. jc does a terrific. shout out to him. i will be time for questions. >> where should we be on the issue of legalization of drugs overall. should we have a short-term focus that the democrats do or should we take a higher ground talking about abuse?

>> in my last term or two in congress i became a major supporter of marijuana. i saw my 44-year-old rivera might die an agonizing death. in anecdotal evidence is always dangerous, but when it comes to end of life in those decisions i would hope the party of freedom would stand for freedom. with regard to marijuana, i have for the past four years written a column for the "baltimore sun" paper believe it or not. the paper suit me. some of you may remember. i called them plaintiffs. [laughter] i read a piece a couple years ago called letter to true the got more comments around the country. when i go to these college

campuses, i have been to lots of jails in my life. member of the legislature, congress, i talked to lots of kids in jail and i think all of you know this. i'm not moralizing. i am not preaching, but when you talk to these kids there's always two elements present almost always. i didn't have a dad and i started with marijuana. in this letter i said to my son you know what, i went to college in the 70s so i have been not to do it, but a lot of friends that did it didn't make sense. a lot of friends did it. didn't cost me any friends and a lot of my friends did it and still do it. i've been to a lot of these in talks to a lot of kids in some

individuals can't handle it. true, my son some of those kids look just like you. i hope that discussion is had in every family in this country. i don't want a more allies. i think it is a state issue. if you listen to the scientists come the scientists step out there today is far more pork and that it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. when you talk about decriminalization, legalization public safety aspects are clear. we tend to ignore the public health aspects of passage. if you think they are potentially significant ask folks in colorado. thanks everybody. [applause]

>> everyone, i think we have a break now. hopefully we will have the books shortly governor ehrlich. and here is our moderator back. >> according to michael, we are going to do what was done before. we'll take a half-hour break, vacate the room. you do need to take your stuff with you because they will set it up for lunch and we will be back in a half an hour to do lunch. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so this meeting of the republican national lawyers association is taking a break now for their lunch. our coverage will resume before 1:00 p.m. eastern. we'll hear from michael carvin who has argued against the affordable care act. coverage at 1255 eastern. across the street, the u.s. capitol were the loretta lynch nomination to the next attorney general has been languishing. an update earlier today from the "washington journal."

>> good morning. >> good morning, how are you. >> host: thank you for joining us. first with the latest on the time and the current vote count for the loretta lynch possible confirmation. >> guest: yeah it is going to be pretty close. she does have support from for republicans. jeff flake of arizona, orrin hatch at utah, susan collins for main and also lindsey graham from south carolina. but as we get closer there is always a chance that support can laugh in. it seems that they are devoted to voting on her but they also agree that they need to bring her before they continue to vote on the rest of lynch. >> host: with the vote on the confirmation possibly delayed until april after a two-week recess after next week in the senate. how much pressure is there during that time to pick off a flake or hatch or graham or

collins, to pick up the republican support the next couple weeks? >> i'm sure there will be some movement to do so. we already see some of the advocacy groups put pressure on republicans. we've seen in the past that can have an influence on capitol hill we thought that reported on the hill. it is difficult to say exactly how the islamic or spoke at but some groups would've preferred that loretta lynch not be the presidential nominee. we have to remember for every day she isn't confirmed, eric holder, who republicans have been very aggressive relationship with he doesn't step down. he continues to serve as attorney general. >> host: is part of the efforts by republicans now a strategy to buy time for that pressure to build? here is one republican, rand paul, who is obviously i will

come out with his estate and again, the confirmation of the red of lynch. president obama's executive amnesty is illegal but the rather lynch calls it reasonable. we must stop lynch. is there a strategy to buy time for the republicans who will vote order to combat? >> guest: well, it is unclear whether or not republicans are trying to buy time here or whether they are trying to get leverage to pass a trafficking bill. they want to prove they can govern and there's a little frustration that this is a bipartisan bill that is now stuck in a can't seem to on stick it. that is part of the trickier trying to use lynch as a way to move forward. >> bring us the latest on the trafficking bill and what will happen next week before the senate goes on the two-week recess. >> guest: certainly. basically the trafficking bill is stuck until mitch mcconnell did reverse the order and moved

it after the trafficking bill. one of the things we have to remember is there's bipartisan compromise coming out. heidi had jammed in to some collins announcement yesterday. john cornyn had one for democrats, but they don't seem willing to bite on that. the trafficking bill continues to be stuck here as well. >> host: bourn fox, staff correspondent for the national journal. thank you for joining us on the "washington journal." >> guest: i appreciate it. have a good day.

>> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad, css jackson. this is an ironclad that was built here in columbus during the war. the oval shapes you see actually but davenport said that jackson. jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular rifle today was one of them built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the naval works in alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads in the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here and this is why the facility is here. it's first and foremost tells the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads. there were many.

>> federal reserve chair said wednesday that there need to be further improvements to the job market and higher inflation before great that the federal fund interest rate. chairman yellen said it's unlikely that an increase could be warranted at a later meeting. the announcement was made following the up in committee. in addition, yellen says it expects only 2.5% economic growth for 2015 and 2016th a much lower inflation rate for the current year. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. as you know the central open

market committee this afternoon reaffirms the current zero to one quarter percentage target range to the federal fund rate. we've also updated our forward 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 subsequent. medians. let me emphasize the timing of the initial increase in the target range will depend on the committee's assessment of incoming information. today's modification of our guidance should not be interpreted to mean that we have decided on the timing of that increase. in other words, just because we

were moved the word patience from the statement does that 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 towards object did 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 and the outlook which formed the basis for policy decisions. we have seen continued progress towards our object is of maximum employment. the pace of employment growth has remained strong with job gains averaging nearly 290,000 per month over the past three

month period the unemployment rate was 5.5% in february. that is three tenths slower than the latest reading available at the time of our december meeting. border measures of job market conditions such as those counting individuals who want and are available to work but is not actively searched recently and people who are working part time but rather work full time have shown similar improvements. as we noted in our statement, the labor market continues to diminish. meanwhile, the labor force participation rate the percentage of working age americans either working or seeking work is lower than most estimates of its trend and wage growth remains sluggish suggesting some cyclical weakness persists.

.. export growth looks to have weakened. looking ahead however, the con committee continues to expect a modest pace of gdp growth with robust gains and lower energy prices supporting household spending. inflation has declined further

below our longer-run objective. largely reflecting the lower energy prices i just mentioned. declining import prices also restrained inflation. in light of the recent appreciation of the dollar will likely continue to do so in the months ahead. my colleagues and i continue to expect it is effects of these transitory factors dissipate and as the labor market improves further, inflation will move gradually back toward our 2% objective over the medium term. in making this forecast, we're attentive to the low levels of market-based measures of inflation compensation. in contrast, survey-based measures of longer term inflation expectations 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 fomc participants. as always, each participants projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. the unemployment rate projectionsing 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 to 5.2% in line with participants estimates of the longer-run normal unemployment rate. committee participants generally see the unemployment rate declining a little further over the course of 2016 and 2017. for economic growth participants generally reduced their

projections since december with many citing a weaker outlook for net exports. nonetheless, the central tendency of the growth projections for this year and next at 2.3 to 2.7% remain somewhat above estimates of the longer-run normal growth rate. finally, fomc participants project inflation to be quite low this year largely reflecting lower energy and import prices. the central tendency of the inflation projections for this year is now below 1%, down noticeably since december. as the transitory factors holding down inflation abate the central tendency rebounds to 1.7 to 1.9% next year, and rises to 1.9 to 2% in 2017. returning to the monetary policy, as i noted at the

outset the committee reaffirmed its view that the current zero to .25 target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate but with economic conditions improving and with further improvement expected in the months ahead we have again modified our forward guidance. in december and january the committee judged that it could be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. that meant that we considered it unlikely that economic conditions would warrant and increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of fomc meetings. well it is still the case 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 depending how the economy evolves. let me emphasize again today's modification of the 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 that 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 range 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 labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures, and inflation expectations. and reads on 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 improvement 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 and inflation are near mandate consistent levels, economic conditions may for some time warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels that the committee views as normal in the longer run. this guidance is consistent with the paths for appropriate policy reported by fomc participants. compared with the projections made in december, most

participants lowered their 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 late 2017. the median projected rate in 2017 remains below the 3 and 3/4% or so projected by most participants as the rate's longer-run value, even though the central tendency of unemployment rate by that time is slightly below that of it is estimated longer-run value, and the central tendency for inflation is close to our 2% objective. participants provide a number of

explanations for federal funds rate running below its longer normal run level at that time. these include particular the residual effects of the financial crisis which are likely to continue to constrain spending and credit availability for some time. i'd like to emphasize that these forecasts of the appropriate path of the federal funds rate are conditional on participants individual projections for economic output, inflation and other factors. but our actual policy actions over time will be data dependent. accordingly if the expansion proves to be more vigorous than currently anticipated and inflation moves higher than expected then the appropriate path would likely follow a steeper and higher trajectory. conversely, if conditions were

to prove weaker, then the appropriate trajectory would be lower and less steep. finally, the committee will continue its policy of reinvesting proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principle payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. the committee's sizable holdings of longer term securities should help maintain accommodate taif financial conditions and promote further progress towards our object i was. thank you. now i would be happy to take your questions. >> howard-[inaudible] howard snyder with reuterses. hi. this pretty consistent reference to expectations above trend growth last couple months. we're seeing growth downgraded with very explicit references to international and external conditions. weak export growth and your own

comments on the dollar. my question doesn't this indicate that the fed is facing tougher time going alone decoupling from the rest of the world than perhaps you expected last fall whether this first started to be an issue? >> well, it looks like from incoming data pertaining to the first quarter, that real gdp growth has declined somewhat below where it was for the last several quarters of last year. and, that's really why the indicated growth moderated somewhat. there is slight downgrading estimates of growth for this year. you mentioned the dollar. we noted that export growth weakened probably strong dollar is one, reason for that.

on other hand, strength of dollar partly reflects strength of u.s. economy. the strength ever the dollar is also one factor that i noted holding down import prices. at least on a transitory basis at this point pushing inflation down. so we are taking account of international developments, including prospects for growth with our trade partners in the forecast we have here. 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 into the labor market by end of 2015. the central tendency of the participants is, they're looking for unemployment rate that will be down to 5.0 to 5.2 which is

consistent with their estimates of its longer-run normal values. so we do see considerable underlying strength, in the u.s. economy. and, in spite of what looks like a weaker, first quarter, we are projecting good performance for the economy. >> marti? >> associated press. the policy statement today talks about one of the prerequisites you need to start raising rates is to be reasonably confident that inflation, your inflation target will be met at 2%. but, that is coming out at a time when you lowered your forecast on inflation. what, which i would think would make you less confident about it. what is it going to take to make you reasonably confident about inflation? >> so i don't have a mechanical

answer for you. there is no single, thing where i would say we must see such and such in order to, achieve that level of confidence. we will be looking at a wide array of data. now, we've said that we also want to see, continued improvement in the labor market. and, a stronger labor market with less labor market slack is one factor that would tend to, certainly, for me, increase my confidence that as slack diminishes that inflation will move up over time. other things, i will be looking at, of course, the inflation data. as we, said, we expect inflation to remain quite low because of the depressing influence of energy price declines and the dollar. but we will be looking at

inflation data carefully to see if we can interpret, for example, low levels of inflation, if we see that which we expect. as reflecting those influences. we will be, looking at wage growth. we have not seen wage growth pick up. we may not see wage growth pick up. i wouldn't say, either that that is preconditioned to raising rates. but if we did see wage growth pick up, that would be, at least a symptom that inflation would likely move up over time. we'll be watching, inflation expectations. survey measures have been stable, i expect that to continue. but we will be watching it carefully. market-based measures of inflation compensation are low. if they move up over time, that would probably serve to increase my confidence.

but there are a wide range of things that we will be looking at including further movement in the labor market but there is no simple answer. that is a judgment the committee will have to make. >> jon hilsenrath from the "wall street journal." chair, yellen, the famous dot plot we always talk about showed that officials expectations for where interest rates will end the year in 2015, 16, and 17 have come down fairly notably. i wonder if you can explain to us your analysis why those estimates are coming down? specifically is it reflection of what's changed? is it reflection of, the changes in the fed's economic forecasts or a change in the way that the fed is reacting to the economy that it sees, its reaction function? >> so, it is always hard to know

exactly why each participant is 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 forecasts. 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 noticeably from previously, it was 5.2 to 5.5. now it's moved down to 5.0 to 5.2. downward revisions to the

longer-run normal unemployment rate, in a way suggests that, participants are seeing more slack in the economy now than they have previously did. so i think. both of those things would point to downward revision in the funds rate path. >> sam fleming from "the financial times.." experience of some other central banks, notably japan sweden, also suggests that tightening early when you're at zero lower bound can be a risky process. risks of tightening early can dramatically outweigh risks of leaving things a little longer. i wonder if you comment on that international experience and play how that's influencing the debate in the fomc at the moment? >> well, when economy is operating at so-called zero

lower bound there, it create as situation where there are asymmetric risks. it is possible, if the economy proves stronger than is expected, to respond to that by tightening policy. if there are adverse shocks, to demand tend to push inflation and economic performance in an adverse direction, it is not possible to lower rates. of course that is a reason why, for a number of reasons we engaged in active asset purchase programs. so there is a situation there of asymmetric risks. and it does point in the direction of waiting longer to raise rates. but, i would say that this is an influence and that we, set of considerations we've long been aware of. we have been taking into account. so that it is not something that

just 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 headwinds that have long 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 to finally raise rates. but that is a consideration we've long taken into account. >> steve liesman, cnbc. i don't hear, chair yellen, any quantitative measures what increasing confidence in inflation or heading back

towards or further improvement in the jobs market which is unusual for a fed that not too long ago was providing us metrics about unemployment, when it would move with rates. is it now policy to keep the market guessing? is it thought you would have better policy and economic outcomes from less certainty about the path of interest rates? and a kind of related question if you will. do could you see raising rates while, the committee still judges that the risks are balanced? >> so in terms of certainty, and providing metrics we provide ad metric or a threshold of 6.5% several years ago and told market participants, and the public that we wouldn't consider it appropriate is 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. and, the markets so, can we provide certainty? of course we can't provide certainty because we're 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, our forecasts of where the economy is going. and respond to appropriately and we can't provide certainty and shouldn't provide certainty

because economic developments that unfold are uncertain. what market participants should be doing is, looking at incoming data just as we are and forming their expectations where policy will be going and should be going just exactly we will be doing by attempting to understand economic developments as they unfold and that's, that is what we're trying to say in this statement that that's what we'll be doing going forward and we don't want to and don't think it is appropriate at this point to provide calendar-based guidance. >> [inaudible] can you raise rates while risks are balanced? >> risks to what? >> can you raise rates in that context? >> i guess we said the risks to 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've said, we want to see further improvement in the labor market and we want to feel reasonably confident that the economy is on a trajectory where we will achieve our 2% inflation objective. >> ben applebaum, "new york times." there seems to be a awful lot riding surveys of inflation expectations yet those surveys are imprecise instrument. they don't seem particularly sensitive to the types of inflation we've seen in recent years. they don't seem to differentiate between 1.5 and 2. the expectations remain stable even through those changes. could you talk a little bit why the focm says those are accurate reflect which inflation is likely to go?

an concerns about market based measures at all correspond to concerns you have about survey-based measures? >> survey-based measures are not perfect. often the mean or medium of those measures does not line up very well with actual inflation. so they seem to be biased. nevertheless, they do seem to be useful in predicting actual movements in inflation and because we think inflation expectations are a determinant of price setting, we need to be looking at the data that we can, even if it is imperfect in trying to gauge inflation expectations. so we do look at survey measures. now, the fact that survey measures are stable even if they're stable at levels consistent with the deflation objective, the central bank wants to achieve that is not a

guaranty that inflation will, will over time move to be consistent with those expectations. an example is japan i would give you where for many years the households and businesses expected positive inflation but there was a consistent undershoot. so this isn't single metric that is perfect but it is one of many things we'd look at. we also look at measures of inflation expectations based on market market differencals between nominal and real or tips yields. there are also informative but i'm -- can move around for reasons pertaining to liquidity in the treasury market and in the tips market and also because of changing perceptions of inflation risk. so they're not a pure read

either. and we want to look at both things and not take away any simple morals. >> peter. >> peter barnes, fox business. chair yellen i wanted to check in again with you on whether or not you see or have any concerns about bubbles out there in the economy, particularly the financial markets, debt and equity markets. i want to refer to your recent monetary policy report to congress last month which you said overall equity valuations by some conventional measures are somewhat higher than their historical levels. valuations metrics this some sectors continue to be appear stretched relative to historical norms of. in the same report last year in july, the report specifically mentioned biotech and social media stocks as being substantially see here, substantially stretched. do you still feel that way and can you comment on bubbles

particularly these sectors? >> i don't, i don't want to comment on those particular sectors. you know, as we said in the report overall measures of equity valuations are in the high side but not out outside of historical ranges. in some corporate debt markets we do see evidence of usually low spreads. and that's what was referred to in the report. more broadly, we do try to assess potential threats to financial stability. and in addition to looking at asset valuations we also look at measures of credit growth of the extent of leverage being used in the economy, and in the financial sector. and the extent of maturity transformation. and taking into account a broad

range of metrics that bear on financial stability our overall assessment at this point that the threats are moderate. >> january loberto "politico." i want to switch gears a little bit and ask you about init shun between fed and congress lately with some lawmakers calling for transparency and accountability measure. i want to ask to what degree there might be room for the fed to consider some of these measures like, maybe a rule-based approach like the taylor rule or some of these measures would change up who has a voting seat on the fomc? to what degree does that make it more difficult to accomplish your mission? >> so, i believe the federal reserve has already one of the most transparent central banks of any around the globe.

we provide an immense amount of information both financial about our balance sheet and our monetary policy operations. we have audited financial statements. we publish our balance sheet every week. if you want to know what is in the portfolio it is listed on the new york fed website on a qsic by qsic basis. i have a press conference. we issue minutes. we have statements that we release right after meetings and transcripts within five years so if you put all of that together we are a transparent central bank. with respect to congressional changes that are underconsideration, that would politicize monetary policy, by bringing congress into, to make

policy judgments about, in real time on our monetary policy decisions, congress itself decided in 1978 that that was a bad thing to do. that it would lead to poor economic performance and they carved out this one area of policy reviews of monetary policy decision making from gao audits. the gao looks at everything else that goes on within the fed. . .