make of it what you want. the federal reserve what they did in the financial crises, i view that as a brief, now that i'm not at the federal reserve. what do i think about the various things that were done. one of the arguments that can be made and you can decide what you think. in the end of the day, you can't really even imagine conclusive proof, evidence about whether something is correct or incorrect. lot of discussions are about counterfactuals. i will discuss them. if you done something different, then something different would have happened. the answer we don't know for sure what would have happened. the fed has done a lot of things. they bailed out some of the creditors and bear stearns.

they bailed out credits and aig, mostly foreign banks. had a lot of programs to provide funds to banks. you had a trouble asset relief program. the federal reserve was involved in doing that in the sense that bernanke was setting at the table when they were twisting banks arms to take funds. quantitative easing, that's part of the response to the financial crisis. what i want to do is start off with the beginning in a way so we remember how this happened. let's leave aside the low interest rate stuff, maybe that's correct, maybe it's not correct. that's counter factual. we can be sure of one thing. that the financial crises revolved around housing. it actually also revolved around securities. specific securities actually. what are called collateralized

debt. this figure is prices of the security from the beginning of 2006 through 2012. what it shows is, these are rated -- there's four graphs. that's just to provide some idea that a variety. i don't want to go into details of the graph. but the fact is, you can see on the graph, security with different ratings. for example, some of the security, aaa, that's the one at the top, they fell by 20%, 60%, over 60%, 80%. lot of securities with double a in 2007 became totally worseless by the time you get to 2009. al of these are backed by subprime mortgages. i'm not saying this caused the crises. its the consequence of the crises. it shows these securities were intimately involved in the way

it unfolded. i'll explain that. this graph shows what's liable or which is the lending bank borrowing rate. which is famous for manipulation and other stuff. minus what's called the -- what is the graph showing. this is intended to be a measure of the perceived riskiness of lending to banks. i'm using that graph for this purpose. you can see early on, 2006, -- 2007 it's really close to zero. then 2009 on, we're just a lot lower. not as low as it was before. in between it's not some big spikes. those spikes are informative about developments and how important they were. the first thing that happened, august 9, 2007, what happened on

august9, 2007? e.c.b. provided funds to p.n.b. what's the next big jump. that big jump, it's a run on the bank in the u.k. called northern rock. in fact it failed. english government still owns it. what's the next big peak? its the end of the year actually. then what is after that? after that is really what we think of as the crises. september16, 2008 there was a huge jump. then there's another big jump, that's the run on the money market fund. i'm going to argue that's actually central to understanding the financial crises. you may not have thought about it or you may think it's a central thing. i'm going to argue it's central in understanding the development. what the fed do and what they didn't do. what's related to that in an set

of interest rates, i will focus on more actually from now on, is commercial paper rates, that's rates in which firms boronia short term base. they borrow for 30 days. other thing this shows treasury security rates. the blue line there on the bottom are gray, i'm color challenged, is the treasury rate. you can see the commercial paper rates are picking up on certain dates, like august 9, 2007. treasury rates actually developed. people bailed out of commercial paper and said i want to be in treasury security. maybe they're not very good long term but on a short term basis, if you buy a treasury security, what it means, if government promises to pay a hundred dollars, they will pay me a hundred dollars. what it will buy, that's a different question. i'll get my hundred dollars at

least. you can see the same developments. the run on northern rock. the run on the money market fund. these things had implications through financial markets. the reason i mentioned those two things, the key speck -- aspect of the financial crises, people couldn't figure out who was solvent on who was not. because they were holding these collateralized debt operation and they weren't sure what they were. people were concerned about the solvency of institutions. that made them concerned about lending. the run on northern rock, got people concerned. northern rock dead not hold the

securities by the way. government investment funds in the u.s. florida governments like a money market fund. they held some of these securities and they went down in value and they actually had a run. i had no idea there was such thing as government investment pool. then i was at the atlanta fed, florida is not that far away, it's in the district, bear stearns, there are firms called lining insured. it guarantee municipal debt. they were also issuing collateral credit default swaps related it securities. when you look at security, over the course of a year in a half, they fall by 80%. you start to wonder, what are the credit rating agencies are doing. these are different securities.

everybody loves to hate the credit rating agencies. there's not a financial economist out there who doesn't want to pile on them. bear stearns was taken over by j.p. morgan chase. they still have stuff on their books. there were governments sponsored. everybody thought nothing could go wrong there. well, they were holding securities related to subprime mortgages. september15th, the bank of america announces purchases of merrill lynch. lehman brothers filed for bankruptcy. that's when everything went bad. september16th, aig was given $85 billion in bridge loan by the fed. reserved primary fund breaks the buck. the reserve primary fund is related to those developments up

above. reserve primary fund, it was a money market fund, prime funds hold commercial paper in addition to holding treasury, securities and then you have security funds. they were holding lehman paper. lehman filed for bankruptcy and paper is not worth what it was before. it doesn't take a big difference, a big fall in value if you say, well this money market fund, they'll pay me a dollar. they have losses. maybe if i wait a week, i'll only get 99 cents. well take the dollar. why would you wait to get 9 the cents late -- 99 cents. what you get is a run on the money market fund. that is what you got. it's a big loss. they actually calculated, suppose the lehman brothers paper is worthless, how much our assets is worth. it was 97 cents on a dollar.

it doesn't take very much. it's just like a bank, actually. if you think they might not have the money, you want to be first one in line. this is a picture from the depression that runs on banks, you want to be there early. you want get your money out the bank. you feel bad for them but it's not going to make you wait until after they get their money. the run on money market funds was like that. there were no lines like that. money market funds don't operate that where you go into the office and get your funds. you call them up or what you do now, you just go online, transfer the funds from your money market account to your bank account, you're out of there. you're in great shape. this graph shows the run on the money market fund and only graphic way you can, which is the change in the quantities of the money market fund.

there's a total there, that only goes down a little actually. it wasn't a run on funds in general. it was a run on prime funds. that's the line in the middle. you can see it dips down. that vertical line is the failure of lehman brothers, bankruptcy filing to be precise. and money market funds, the funds went down. government funds went up. people were saying you're holding treasury security, i'll get my money. you're holding commercial paper, maybe aisle get my money, maybe i won't. this showed up in interest rates. this is the graph i showed you before but who i want to highlight is, you have that big spike with the run on money market funds. you had a big increase in commercial paper rates. you had a decrease in treasury rates basically down to zero. if i can get my dollar back 30 days from now, hey, that's good. by the time you got to the

middle of september in 2008. this is at a time, remember, stock market ended up going down in the u.s. the stock market in the u.s. went down almost 50%. it's like, treasury paper looks pretty good. you have this run and it's showing through interest rates. it's not the case it's like a run on the money market prime money market funds. that's the end of it. it's really tough for the prime money market fund or for the people who have deposits in it but it's affecting financial markets as well. it's affecting treasury rates, it's affecting commercial paper rates. let's look at the graph. there's a big increase in the interest rates that we're looking at here. it's up to 6%. that's a big rate. doesn't sound all that big.

what we were hearing at the time, i have trouble with this as an economist, what people were saying was, well, they were locked out of the market. if we couldn't borrow at any rate. why were people borrowing -- i have trouble with that in the sense. some interest rates people will loan to you. if you're treasurer of general electric for example, you probably don't want to go to a loan. they borrow in commercial paper to do things like pay for goods that bought so they can make other things. life itself is disruptive. on the other hand, this is a significant event in the economy and maybe you can do something about it and it's not as big.

certain things anyway. why did the federal reserve do anything at all? you could argue the federal reserve was a mistake from day zero. i don't want to go there at the moment. it's just not the topic i'm supposed to talk about. i was kidding earlier, sort of, somebody said, you know well, professor, they always talk too long anyway. i always tell people, look, you tell me what you want 50 minutes or hour and 15 minutes, i can do either one. so the fed was created to do something about banking panics. the great depression without a doubt was partly the federal reserve's fault. let's leave that aside. the thing is, when people in the u.s., at least my age event, certainly my mother's age, when

my mother thought about the financial crises. my mother thought, oh no, this is are the start of the depression. nonetheless, it's what we think of anymore because we don't have these little crises, little banking panics that we used to have before. used to have them every 10 or 20 years. the federal reserve intervened. one of the effects what they did, this is a table from some stuff i did with jim. it's hard without using a pointer or moving around. let's see. i'll move around. it's easier. you have to look over here and realize, we want to point to the middle column. this number down at the bottom is the figure for the u.s. it's how big was the contraction during the recession in the united states. minus 5.64%.

now suppose we compare that to the contractions -- well, before the federal reserve, three of them and the great depression. what we see is, this contraction was minus 5.64. the severe business cycles runs on banks before the creation of federal reserve or 1.83 minus 11.75.., minus 12.58. the declines in gnp were much bigger. the depression of course was really horrible. the decline in real gnp for having a severe banking crises was relatively small. maybe that's federal reserve, maybe not. i'm going to argue it was in part actually. if we look what led to all of this, part of what led to all of

this is, this is the unemployment rate. it shows what was talked about before, pretty clearly, you see these blue lines. those are recessions. if you look from 1980 up to 2008, there aren't very many recessions. the increases in unemployment aren't particularly big or really big. when we get to 2008, that's really bad. we had this period that was relatively quiet and calm. then we had a big increase. one of the things that happened, we can look and see -- one of the things that monetary policy, at least from my point of view is supposed to do, is control the growth rate and money supply and make it consistent with -- in some sense, with reasonable behavior by the economy. what might it do during a financial crises or run on banks

is, keep the growth rate of the money supply from falling like it do during a depression. this is from 2007 to 2013, the growth rate of the money supply is kind of knocking around. it actually went up a little bit after the financial crises. but it's pretty steady. this is the only financial crises of my life. it's really pretty steady. arguably, that's one of the reasons why the decline in real gnp wasn't as bad. the monetary base is something else. this all comes back to -- the monetary base, this is currency plus the reserves. this is what's on the federal reserve balance sheet or is related to it. you can see, this behaved quite differently. it was pretty flat and it gone

up a lot. that's quantitative easing. one of the things that everybody is worried about, not everybody but lots of people, they look at the federal reserve balance sheet, they say they have a lot of currency and r e serves out there. might not that cause inflation? you can buy ten of these for $7 on ebay. it gives you some idea how much inflation it was. brand new ones. not even used ones. quantitative easing worries people. you have all of this currency and reserves, this could turn into growth of the money supply. doesn't have to, it could. what's my evaluation of it? quantitative easing, i think,

can't accomplish the goal of lowering the unemployment rate substantially. i don't think the fed can change the unemployment rate predictably. at the very least, quantitative easing is unlikely to have any big effect on the unemployment rate. if you want to affect the real economy, it's a poor way of doing it. larry talked about the federal reserve credited allocatetor. it seems to me like quantitative easing is running large risk of nonexistent effect. the financial crisis itself could have been handle better. the answer is sure. it's always easier after the fact. the people did the best they could. that's the good news and the bad

news. the good news is, they weren't trying to make things worse. they were doing the best they could given what they knew at the time. it's discretion, which is undesirable in itself. how about all of these actions that were taken along the way. what do i think about those? bear stearns, this is a big thing, bear stearns, lehman brothers and aig were inconsistent. this is the single biggest problem that everything that occurred. lot of people think about this a lot. bear stearns, the creditors were bailed out. the stockholders got some value, aig was an insurance company. it wasn't even a bank. it wasn't even an investment bank. it was bailed out. it was bailed out the day after lehman brothers was allowed to fail. at that point, all you can say

what are they doing? i don't know. this is exactly what you don't want during a financial crises is people uncertain. they're already uncertain. you're making them more uncertain. most of the people i know at the federal reserve say, we should have bailed out lehman brothers, obviously. i go the opposite say, i say no they should have been allowed to fail. how about t.a.r.p. -- i only have one minute. he two -- i had two minutes. okay. professor minutes. i'm not a central banker anymore. i'll quit. there were a bunch of liquidity programs. the federal reserve intervened to provide credit to money

market funds for example. it provided commercial -- funded commercial paper funding. because you had this big spike in commercial paper rates. people are streaming into government securities so the federal reserve provided an alternative source to doing that and provided more government securities for people. it was temporary by the way. t.a.r.p., i think was a terrible idea. quantitative easing, purchases of mortgage backed securities. i think the issue there, you have to think about, do you want the fed to be a credit allocatetor or not. this is a great deal. if you don't, it's not. it's really that simple. okay, i think the federal reserve should focus on inflation and i think one thing to be aware of, any kind of fix, restricting behavior in a crises

is hard to do. the thing is, if you're in a policy position during the financial crises, you have lots of things going on. you're not anymore sure than lots of other people about what's going on. you're not really sure what's going to happen next any more than other people are. you're going to try to do the best you can. that's not necessarily a good thing to have people doing. that's what people are going to do. thank you. >> thank you gerald. we do have time for some questions from the audience. if you guys will follow a microphone coming around and if you could state your name and affiliation. i'm going to leave this entirely up to our microphone guys. i'm not picking anybody.

>> [inaudible] i can tell you that i work for the financial services committee, we've been informed by the writing of these three scholars in a big way. we had larry testify so much we're working on getting him at least a cubicle up on the hill. my question is, with respect to some of the points of criticism today and the path of the future, it strikes me that reform efforts have to be wholistic, have to look at all three legs fed's role as lender of last resort and then monetary policy. just to summarize. what we're looking at is something simple and something not new. encouraging the fed to use rules

based policy. no matter what that rule might be. gdp targeting or taylor rule or something else. if you look at the press release from today's meeting about their latest idea about guidance, it's -- particularly the use of 133 which is incredibly i think dangerous. also cost benefit analysis requirement for the statutory cost benefit analysis requirement for the fed rule making that opens up a possibility for judicial review. certainly don't think the fed can make that argument. i wonder if you sort of agree with that general idea. that is has to be wholistic.

it has to look at statutory constraints on all three functions of the fed. because the boundaries between those has not been clear. limits transportation mechanisms and monetary policy. there are arguments about that. the lender function at the monetary policy function, blend together. i just wonder if you sort of generally agree or have comments about that approach. it's great to have you guys here to comment on that. i can read what you written, but i can't always ask you questions. i love to get your information and advice and continually as we go through this process. >> sure, i'll answer that first. i agree in general. one thing i think, the rule has

to come from rule or it's not a rule. for example if congress -- here's the way it works in new zealand. it doesn't have come from congress, it come from the administration. there are of consequences. that's not a rule in the sense it says what to do everyday. it says what the goal is. the set up we have now is we tell people, oh, you're on the board now. do good things. nobody gets on the board to do bad things. you can imagine it. i don't think that's true. the rule in the sense of the policy goal has to come from congress or not a constraint. keep two percent inflation as long as we want.

or keep quantitative easing until the unemployment rate is 6.5% unless we change our mind. it's not a constraint. whereas if you say 2% inflation that's a constrain. >> [inaudible] >> well, i'm sure that i'm not surprised if i agree -- independently. i have had to say that. >> if i can make a comment on this. i think the case for rules and monetary policy has been driven home so well so often that it's hard to add much to what's already been said except to say

that nothing in the recent crises contradicts the merits in the argument. i want to say something about rules for dealing with crises which is related to some of jerry's comments in his talk. it seems to me that jerry said, -- >> you'll see this event later in our program schedule and online. we'll take you live to the first news conference of the new federal reserve chair janet yellen. >> good afternoon. i'm pleased to join you for the first fomc press conferences. like chairman bernanke before me, i appreciate the opportunity at this press conferences afford to explain the decisions of the fomc and respond to your

questions. the market committee concluded a two day meeting earlier today. as you already know from our statement, the committee decided to make another modest reduction in the pace of its purchases of longer term securities. the committee also updated its guidance regarding the likely future path of the short term interest rates. as i'll explain we're fully in the moment, this change in our guidance does not educate any -- indicate any change in committee policy intention as set forth in this recent statement. rather the changes meant clarify how the committee anticipates policy evolving after the unemployment rate declined below 6.5%. let me explain the check outlook that underlies these actions. despite some softer recent data,

the fluencies outlook towards continues progress toward our goal of maximum employment and inflation returning to 2%, remains broadly unchanged. unusually harsh weather in january and february, has made assessing the underlying strength of the economy especially challenging. broadly speaking, however, the spending and production data will somewhat weaker than we had expected in january on roughly in line with our expectations as of december. the last time committee participants submitted economic projections. in contrast, market conditions have continued to improve. the unemployment rate at 6.7% is three tenth lower than the data available at the time of the

december meeting. further, broader measures of unemployment such as the u6 measure, which includes marginally works and those working part time but preferring full time work, have fallen even more than they had lined unemployment rate over this period. labor force participation has picked up. while the committee continues to monitor developments in global financial markets caps late, financial conditions remain broadly consent with the fluency objective. inflation has continued to run below the committee's two percent objective. given longer term inflation expectations appear to be well

anchored and in light of the ongoing recovery in the united states and many economies around the world, the of a fluency continues to expect inflation to move gradually back. the committee is mindful inflation running consistently below its objective can pose risk to economic performance. the committee also recognizes, however, the policy actions tend to exert pressure on application that -- inflation that have manifest over time. the affluency will continue to monitor data. this outlook is reflected in the individual economic projection

submitted in conjunction with this meeting by the 16 affluency participants, four board members and 12 reserve bank presidents. as always, each participant's projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. the central tendency of the unemployment rate projections has shifted down by a about two tenths sense december. now stands between 6.1 and 6.3 percent at the end of this year. the unemployment rate is projected to reach normal leonie level -- normal level by the end of 2016. the real gdp growth stands at 2.8 to 3 percent for 2014. it remains somewhat of above that of the estimate longer run

normal growth through 2016. meanwhile, as i noted, affluency participants continue to see inflation moving only gradually back towards two percent over time as the economy expands. the central tendency of the inflation projections is 1.5 to 1.6% in 2014 rising to 1.7 to 2. 0% in 2016. let me now return towards a decision to make another measured reduction in the pace of asset purchases. starting next month, we will be purchasing $55 billion of securities per month. down $10 billion per month from our current rate. even after today's action takes effect, we will continue to significantly expand our holdings of longer term security.

we will also continue to roll over ensuring treasury securities and reinvest principle payments from the affluency holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage backed securities and agency mortgage backed securities. the sizeable and still increasing holdings will continue to put downward pressure on longer term interest rates. support mortgage markets and make financial conditions more accommodative helping support job creation and return of inflation to the committee's objective. as before, if incoming information broadly supports the

committee's expectation of ongoing improvement in labor market and inflation moving back over time, the committee will likely continue to reduce the pace of asset purchases in measured steps in future meetings. however purchases are not on a preset course and the committee's decisions that the pace of purchases remain contingent on outlook of jobs. the new guys does not indicate any change in the policy intention of the fomc. instead reflect changes in the conditions we face. let me explain this more fully.

in december 2012, the committee first stated its guidance in terms of economic thresholds. stipulating that the current low range for the federal funds rate target would be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5%. inflation is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above our longer run goal and longer term inflation expectations remain anchored. sense that time, progress in the labor market has been more rapid than we had anticipated. while inflation has been lower than the committee had expected. although the thresholds served well as a useful guide to policy over the past year, last december affluency judge appropriate to update that guidance. noting that the current target

range will likely be maintained well past the teemment unemployment rate climbs below 6.5%. today, the committee is further revised its forward guidance to better reflect conditions as they now stand and are likely to evolve over coming quarters. the revised formulation starts with a general description of the factors that drive affluency decision-making. then provides the affluency's current assessment of what those factors will likely imply for the future path of short term interest rates. in particular, the committee states that in determining how long to maintain the current

zero to one quarter percent federal fund rate, it will assess progress towards its objectives of maximum employment and two percent inflation. in short, the larger the shortfall of employment or inflation from the respective objective set by the fomc and the longer any such shortfall is expected to persist, the longer the target federal funds rate is likely to remain in the present zero to one quarter percent range. the affluency will base its ongoing settlement on a wide rake of information including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations on readings on financial developments. as i've noted the assessment of

those factors is consistent with the characterization provided in previous forward guidance. the committee continues to anticipate the conditions will likely warrant maintaining the current range to the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the acid purchase program ends. the affluency also sum limited its guidance pertaining to the period after the asset program ends and the initial increase in the federal funds rate target has occurred. the statement continues to note that in deciding on the pace for removing accommodationings, the committee will take a balanced

approach obtaining its objectives. the statement now adds the committee's current anticipation, even after employment and inflation are near mandate consistent levels, economic conditions may for some time, warrant keeping short term interest rates below levels the committee use as normal in the longer run. this guidance is consistent with the task for appropriate policy as reported in the participant's projections. which showed the federal funds rate for most participants remaining well below longer run normal values at the end of 2016. although affluency participants provide a number of explanations for the federal funds rate, remaining below its longer run normal level, many cite the impacts of the financial crises

and some note that the potential growth rate of the economy may be lower at least for a time. in summary, the committee's actions today reflected its assessment, the progress in the labor market is continuing but much remains to be done on both the jobs and inflation front. unemployment is still elevated. underemployment and long term unemployment remains significant concerns and inflation is running significantly below the affluency's objective. these conditions warrant the continuation of highly accommodative policy reflected in today's policy statement. the federal reserve's interest rate guidance and its substantial still increasing holdings of longer term securities will ensure that

monetary policy remains highly accommodative promoting the affluency objectives of maximum employment and price. thank you. i'll be glad to take your questions. >> madam chair. associated press. could you give us inside how the decision was made on dropping 6.5% numerical target in the forward guidance. was there any concern expressed that there's been criticism on forward guidance, that it's confusing markets not helping them in some ways. perhaps it would have been better to go to just a lower target, say 6%. could also address the concerns raised in the dissent that by

dropping this, it lowers the commitment on fighting low inflation, thank you? >> thanks. as i mentioned in my statement, the reason the committee felt the time come to revise the forward guidance, the committee think it's been effective. i think it had a useful impact in helping markets understand our expectations and shaping their own. it is becoming as the unemployment rate gets closer and closer to 6.5%, to breaching that threshold that seems like the one that is likely to be breached, the question is, markets want to know the public wants to understand beyond that threshold how will we decide what to do. so the purpose of this change is

simply to provide more information than we have in the past even though it is qualitative information, we will be looking at as the unemployment rate declines below 6.5% in deciding how long to hold the federal funds rate. as i said, we've tried to give a general formulation of what we'll be looking at which is how far are we, how large are the shortfalls in achieving our goals. how fast do we expect progress to be. that will be the main factors we'll be looking at. we initially started with unemployment rate as a threshold that i was easy enough for the committee to say, with unemployment rate above 6.5%, we know we're not close to full

employment. not close to employment level consistent with our mandate. we wouldn't dream of raising the federal funds rate target. the committee has never felt that the unemployment rate is sufficient statistic for the labor market. i think if he to choose one indicator of the labor market, the unemployment rate is probably as good as one i could find. in assessing the real state of slack in the labor market and ultimately inflationary pressures that could result from that, it's appropriate to look at many more things. that's why the committee now states we will look at a broad range of information. so the closer we get is we narrow in oncoming closer to the target we want to achieve. we will be carefully considering

many indicators of how close are we to our targets. those are the main reasons. now, you asked as well about the dissent. he endorsed the new guidance about the likely path of the federal funds rate after we begin to finally raise it. that indicates that it's unlikely to be back to normal levels for some time. he questions whether or not the reformulated forward guidance shows sufficient commitment of the committee to its 2% inflation objective. i would simply say on my own behalf and behalf of the committee, we are fully committed to the two percent

inflation objective. we do not want to undershoot inflation for prolonged period of time. as i mentioned, monetary policy operates with lags. so the policies we have in place, we think will gradually move inflation back to two percent. if the committee had real concerns, then the inflation will remain consistently below two percent. i feel confident the committee will act to prevent that. >> john, from the " wall street journal. there seems to be a slight upward drift in the expectations for rates going out to 2016. for instance a majority of officials see rates at one percent or higher.

in the last forecast majority saw officials less than one percent. i wonder if you can explain why there's this small upward drift and expected rates among committee members? whether these projections are a good guide about the public about the path of rates going forward. how you reconcile this upward drift with the assurances that the committee makes in its statement that rate will stay below normal levels well into the future? >> there's only very limited upward drift. the committee, i think the committee in assessing the economy, if you compare today's assessment with december's is virtually identical. almost nothing has changed.

unemployment has come down. the labor market more broadly i think has improved a little more than we might have expected. that slightly more rapid improvement in the unemployment picture might explain, i can't speak for why write down what they do, a little bit of the upward shift in those dots. more generally, i think one should not look to the dot plot as the primary way in which the committee wants to or is speaking about policy to the public at large. the affluency statement is the advice the committee as a policy making group uses to express its opinions. we have expressed a number of opinions about the likely path

of rates. in particular the committee is endorsed to use it and it anticipate it is will be a considerable period after the asset purchase program ends before it will be appropriate to begin to raise rates. we will be looking at next fall. i think that's important guidance. looking further out, let's say if you look at toward the end of 2016, when most participants are projecting that the employment situation, the unemployment rate will be close to their notions of mandate consistent or a longer run normal level. what you see -- i think if you look this time, if you gaze at the picture from december or september which is the first

year that we showed those slots through the end of 2016, is the massive points that are notably below practice the participants believe is the normal longer run level for nominal short term rates. the committee today for the first time endorsed that as a committee view. i think that's what we should be paying attention to. i would warn you that these dots are going to move up and down over time, a little bit this way or that. the dots move a little bit in december relative to september. i really don't think it's appropriate to read very much into it. more generally, the end of 2016 is a long way out. monetary policy will be geared to evolving can bees --

conditions in the economy. as those views evolve, the committee views on policy will likely evolve with them. that's kind of uncertainty that the committee will want eliminate completely from its guidance. because we want the policy we put in place to be appropriate to the economic conditions that will prevail years down the road. >> that one particular paragraph which says that the committee anticipates a lower than normal rate even once you return to the long run. i understand correctly. it means once you hit the longer run unemployment rate 5.4%, once you get two percent inflation rate, the mortgage should not

then anticipate the longer run 4% fed funds rate. that would be question number one. question two, doesn't that suggest a shallower glide path once you take off. >> it does suggest shallower glide path. what the committee is expressing here, i would say is its forecast of what will be appropriate from years from now. based on the understanding that we'll develop about what are the economic forces that has been driving economic activity. we've had a series of years now in which growth has proven disappointing. members of the committee have different views about why this is likely to be true that the

funds rate, when the labor market is normalized and inflation is back to our objective, may be have slightly different views on exactly why it's likely to be the case that interest rates will be little lower than they were in the longer run. but for many it's a matter of head winds from the crises that have taken a very long time to dissipate and likely to continue being operative. some examples i would say is we have households are under going balance sheet repair. there are under water mortgage holders, difficulties in gaining access to credit for example through home equity lines of credit. for some that makes it difficult to finance small businesses. mortgage credit is very

difficult for those still to get without credit scores that improve somewhat over time. but it's not back to normal. for some fiscal policy is somewhat tighter than would be expected over the next several years. for some it's head winds from the global economy play a role as well. the general assessment is that even after we've had an accommodative monetary policy for long enough to get the economy back on track in the sense of meeting our objectives, the stance of policy that will be appropriate through accomplish that won't be easier or involved somewhat lower than would be normal short term interest rates. eventually years later most people think they will go back up. as you said, that suggest the

path will be gradual. i do want to emphasize this is a forecast. this is the committee's forecast based on its understanding of the economy at this time. as we watch the economy over the next several years that could evolve. >> hi washington post. you mentioned in your testimony on capitol hill that the fed was trying to assess the balance of effects versus weakness in the economy as the reason for the slow down in growth in the first quarter. you guys mentioned specifically, does that mean that the fed analysis has come down or you still concerned there could be something else going on? you guys also lowered your forecast for gdp growth this

year. >> certainly the analysis that we've done, we did spend a lot of time discussing how it's affected businesses and households in various parts of the country. certainly weather has played an important role in weakening economic activity. ....

around here a little bit, but if we take december to march, committees views are largely unchanged. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hello. i am with the l.a. times. you have been on and you have served with the fed previously. i am wondering now in the past few weeks, as chairwoman, what

has been different about being on the fed and your responsibility as chair? >> thanks. i am very lucky i have had a lot of fed experience to draw on. as i approach this role, because it is complicated and now in many ways, in terms of management and responsibility, to assure the federal reserve ofes progress on its schools getting the economy back on on ournd making progress financial stability and regulation objectives. i feel the weight of responsibility keenly in the new role i have and i am very committed to making sure i've provide leadership necessary for the federal reserve system to move forward on these goals.

in terms of the conduct of business, it is pretty much the same as usual. -- or havevisioning been so far any radical changes in how the federal reserve does its business. the includes operating fomc. >> robin harding from the financial times. given the new qualitative guidance does not give any information about how you will trade off your unemployment and inflation objectives, how will the risk of higher inflation versus faster progress of unemployment as we get closer to unemployment? thank you. >> so far, we have not had the trade-off to make because inflation is running well below our objectives.

remainseasure, there substantial slack in the labor market. aboutoffs and worrying doing more were less because we have conflicting objectives, this really has not been an in our discussions about how to conduct policy now. as we get closer to meeting our goals, it could become an element. we have given guidance in this statement, and perhaps more guidance in our so-called consensus statement of longer run goals and monetary policy and strategies that would now reaffirm for three years in a row that the committee would take a balanced approach in situations where our objectives conflict and we are faced with

between inflation and unemployment. when we first put our threshold into effect, we envisioned a possible situation where such a where we could arrive, might face a situation where unemployment was quite high, namely over 6.5%. and inflation might drift close to two. our threshold-based guidance gave more concrete indication we would tolerate inflation running a little over two percent with unemployment sufficiently high before moving the federal funds rate off of zero. concretetent the guidance is useful, i do not believe it is a situation -- if i thought that was a situation we are likely to encounter in several years, we

probably would have revived -- revise our forward guidance in a different way. as eliminating the language because it does not seem like a situation that is at all likely. i would point you to the final statement in this statement that the fomc does not see this guidance as indicating any change in our policy intentions. how we wouldde make trade-offs between our inflation and employment objectives, if we were to face -- asituation area situation. first, you said something that happened by next fall, on a

path until next fall, it was unclear if you are speaking -- >> i simply meant to say that if we continued to reduce the pace of our asset cases in the manner we have, in measured steps, the program would be winding down next fall. >> in this coming fall, not the fall of next year. >> this coming fall. down the bondnd buying program, could you tell us how long of a gap we might expect before rate hikes again? -- begin? >> the language we use is considerable. this is the kind of turn that is hard to define.

probably something around the order of around six months or that type of thing. it depends what the statement is saying, it depends what conditions there are. see where the labor market is and how close we are to our full employment goal. that will be a complicated assessment not just based on a single statistic, and how rapidly we are moving toward it, really close and really fast? or are we getting closer but moving slowly? the statement and what it emphasizes, this is the thing language we used in december and january, we use the language, especially if inflation is running below two percent objective. principle tries to capture the notion. if we have a substantial

shortfall in of inflation, if is persistently running below our two percent objective, narrow and -- that is very good reasons older for longer. >> the committee passes vice-chairman said recently if the economy decided it was not growing at all, those would be the kind of changes in the outlook that would warrant changing tapering. is that an accurate description of what you mean? anything between zero and five? secondly, there is a lot of research showing short unemployment seems to be responsible for the level of inflation. is that the fed posses you at this point? >> the numbers you cited would be extremes.

i would not go to such extremes. way i would put it is this. the first is we need to assess the labor market continues to be on demand and we seem reasonably that wille outlook not get us back. second of all, we need to see coming back to the inflation again, inflation is low.

we believe the evidence is consistent with it is moving up over time. within a longer comfortable making the assessments. they no longer seem reasonable make thecing to extensions and asset purchases to the current plan. five percent and one percent are extreme numbers. i want to feel confident making those two statements. with respect to the issue of short-term unemployment, is more relevant for inflation of the labor market.

to adopt any notion that says the stock is an accurate read on how inflation is determined. this is something our committee will look at, especially as otheroyment goes down and labor market indicators simultaneously improve. we have looking at a broadly -- range of indicators. mentions where we see slack in the economy. >> you have spoken in the past about margin last year how you

supplement your view about the labor market. layoffs and things like that. involvedour dashboard in speaking in the past few which indicators, positive andata, negative indicators, thank you. >> i have spoken in the past about indicators i would like to to thein addition unemployment rate. we will certainly look at border measures. my statement. five percent of the labor force working part-time on an involuntary basis, that is a

high number relative to the measured unemployment rate. to my mind, it is a form of slack that adds to what we see in the normal unemployment rate and is unusually large. down and moving in the right direction and is moving even more than recently. i watched marginally detached workers ms chair has been immensely high and can be very stubborn in bringing down. that is something i watched closely that remains exceptionally high. from somethingn like 45% high 30 posses it is in my dashboard labor force participation. suggests due to

factors, labor force participation will be coming down and there has been a downward trend for a number of years. component inclical the fact labor force participation is depressed. economy against to strengthen the, we could see labor force participation latin out for a time as discouraged workers start moving back into the labor market. that is something i am watching closely. there are different views on this within the committee. it is hard to know definitively what part of the labor force participation is structural versus cyclical. something to watch closely. i mentioned in the past, measures of labor market turnover.

usually going directly into another job. i think in many ways as a sign of the economy. reduce willingness to quit their jobs. quit rates are now below normal prerecession levels but on the other hand, they have come up over time and we have seen improvement. the job opening rate has also come up. the hires rate remains extremely depressed and i think that is a market.a weaker labor these measures do not retain the identical measure of

improvement, if you ask about my -- word, the dial on virtually all of those things is moving in the direction of improvement. the final thing i mentioned is wages. verygrowth has been really low. there has been one isolated measure of wage growth that presents an uptick, but most increase are at very low levels. growth, andivity two percent inflation, one would probably expect to see something between perhaps three percent and four percent wage inflation would be normal. it has been running at two percent. not only is it depressed, signaling weakness in the labor market, it is certainly not flashing an increase which might

signal tightening or meaningful on inflation, at least over time. i would say we are not seeing that. >> light angers from cvs. for tens of millions of americans, the recovery is a long time covering. thoughts on why the recovery is so slow and why the economy is not creating more. >> the short answer is we have lived through a devastating financial crisis that has taken an exceptional toll on the economy in many different ways, from housing to leaving a huge number of homeowners with living in homes with mortgages that are underwater. it has had a highly negative

affect on their credit ratings and ability to access credit. it has left his mrs. with cautious attitudes that we see in business investment spending which is very strange. we have had weakness in the global economy and a very tight fiscal policy at home after stimulus at the onset of the recession, we have had a good deal of fiscal consolidation in the united states. at a time when fiscal policy of normally, in the past, would have been surfing to create jobs, fiscal policy from that standpoint has served as a headwind for the country, and especially at the federal level but also state and local levels as well. we have had a disappointing

recovery and monetary policy is tried to do what we can to offset that. the linkages are not as strong or quick as we might ideally like them to be. >> thank you. i would like to take you back to last summer when there were hints by the fed that they were going to taper and long-term interest rates spiked. what lessons, looking back at what lessons have you learned and are you confident you will not repeat those mistakes again? >> there are quite a number of things happening at that time. it is probably true monetary may have played a role touching off the market reaction

but the market reaction was aacerbated by the fact we had very significant online to of trays and other leveraged that investors had taken, perhaps thinking the wasl volatility exceptionally low and perhaps lower than was safe for them to have assumed. ways, the fact the term has come up in interest rate so it has had ah negative effect on the recovery which is evident in housing and the slowdown, perhaps it has diminished some financial instability risk that may have been associated with these traits and speculative

activities unwinding during that is we will and we were trying but we will and will continue to try to communicate as clearly as we possibly can about how we will conduct monetary policy to bs steady and determined and transparent as we can to provide as much clarity as is reasonably certain given the economic developments in the economy are themselves uncertain. as hard as we cannot to be a source of instability here. >> masher, abc news. drivers last spring and summer of home prices and home sales was that sense that interest rates were going up and were spiking.

a year later, we're looking at a flat interest rate picture as far as homebuyers are concerned. is there any sense on your committee that staying on this level loses its punch the longer we remain here? if i am thinking about going out and building a home, why should i do that today as opposed to waiting a few more years and months before interest rates go up? >> the level of interest rates remains by historic levels. the level of household formation is and has been very depressed for some time. a lot of kids were shacking up with their families. they would probably like to be places andnd wiring their own, and apartment order home. potentialemographic there for a new household that

would generate either single or multifamily. the level of rates matters. the fact that there alone now is something that should serve as a backlus as people coming to the housing market. we have not yet seen the pickup uper interest rates went last summer, but i do expect housing activity to begin to expand more rapidly later on. xdo not think it is only the dictation i have to live now, or things will be more expensive later, that spurs those decisions. >> hello.

k davidson from politico. much has been made about the fact you and your predecessor agreed and shared many of the same policy views. can you tell us one way in which your chairmanship will be >>ferent and ben bernanke's? we are committed to the same set of goals. as i indicated, my goal, and i will throw myself into this as wholeheartedly as i can, is to make as rapid progress as we possibly can in getting the recovery back on track in putting americans back to work and back in jobs. and moving up to levels of the committee's target of two percent. my predecessor was devoted to that also.

strengthening the financial progress.a work in he made large inroads in strengthening the financial system. there is more work to be done. i have a long to do list. to seeigh priority further work done in addressing too big to fail. we have a to do list of things we want to accomplish and in assessing threat to financial one ofty because neither us, no one wants to live through a financial crisis like the last one. we want to be extremely aware of emerging threats to the financial system. i have not answered your action by saying i will be different, but i think he had a good agenda and it is one i shared and it is to be vice watch

chair and this agenda i continue to do. >> i wanted to talk about international developments and the crisis in ukraine. is the crisis a headwind for the u.s. economy and are there risks to the u.s. economy and the u.s. banking system directly and indirectly, and did the russians move $100 billion in u.s. treasury securities and the last couple of weeks to avoid sanctions? those securities are held by the fed. thank you. >> let me start with the last piece of your question first. ,ovements in custodial accounts they are something i am not in a position to comment about.

in terms of the situation in the ukraine and russia, it is something we are monitoring very close to. -- closely. andiscussed the linkages exposures of the u.s. banking system to the ukraine and russia are not large, that we are not , butmeaningful impacts now obviously there are geopolitical risks here that it is very important for us to be attentive to and keep our eye on. we are not seeing a broader global financial repercussions. if this were to escalate, that would be something on our radar screen. we are not seen that now.

>> you have spoken about how unemployment is more than just statistics to you. when you make that statement, who do you have in mind and what do you do to keep in touch with the human side, with the impact of the economic crisis and slow recovery we have had? >> i would the surprised if anyone in this someonesn't know touched by unemployment and difficulties getting jobs and that is true of me and my family and friends as it probably is for many of you. ofpoke to a broad range business context and tried to stay in touch with what is happening to real people and the economy. we do a lot of work and

development and have groups come and talk to us and explained to us how communities have been affected by the economic situation and the housing crisis. francisco, wesan had programs there and work closely in low income communities that have been very badly affected. to study what kinds of tograms that can be affected try to understand what kinds of advice to those in the community developing lending field to help . i do try to listen to people who try to represent communities

experiencing the worst of the crisis and stay in touch with it that way. >> janet yellen, her first news conference as fed chair, we will show it to you again 8:00 em eastern on the stand. you can find any time on our website. we will take you live to new york to the united nations .ecurity council russia annexing crimea in the ukraine. speaking out is the ukrainian ambassador to the land. live coverage on c-span. >> the result of the legal reference dutch referenda more doubtful. on the decision made by the it ist -- to boycott

about 300,000 people. ukrainians, about half a million. national minorities. the referendum provided two questions as options. neither of which provide for maintaining the present -- predecessor. the personalities invited onceded serious doubts again, i would like to emphasize the legality of the referendum. the republic of ukraine is subject.

it violates not only the current legislation, but also fundamental rules of international law. charter,ited nations , thell as other documents 19 one -- 1991 agreement of the united states. evidence,ce of eyewitnesses, accounts of events, including those of theign nationals, proved conditions of the referendum failed to meet democratic centers with the framework of the council of europe. the declaration of independence by the ukrainian republic is a direct consequence of the application of user force and threats. in a review of russian nuclear

as well as the general. accordingly, i assert, on the basis of norms and international law that the international community is obliged -- obliged not to recognize for any situation, treaty, or agreement that may be arise to or treated by this territory. a strong andess imperative progress of the self proclaimed republic subject to international law. it does not meet the international obligations of the russian federation of multilateral agreement guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the ukraine, the integrity of the borders, and non-interference in the country.

independence of the formation was declared by a legitimate authority based on the results of the constitutional referendum held on the continuous violation of democratics enters. lamed's itself broke republic of crimea has a single goal. to create legitimate reasons for and corporation. we are seriously concerned about about ethnic groups living in crimea who have not supported a so-called referendum. there is a serious threat on their lives. myould like to echo colleagues from the security council. the ukraine and the entire civilized world will never recognized the independence of the ukrainian -- of ukraine.

>> i think the representative of the ukraine for that statement. i now give the floor to the member of the security council. i give the floor to the representative of france. >> madame president. you forlike to thank your statements and the president of the ukraine for his. international community through referendum isthe null and void in the eyes of international law. become's veto does not push anything. quite the contrary. the legality of the conflicting of crimea was all the more

blatant. -- regardingimea how this is all picked to be. typhoon of aggressive nationalism, aggressive nationalism which no one here knows how far it will go, and nationalism, which never leaves to anything good, the nationalism so often used to mask or justify the undermining of individual freedoms. made a great deal of effort to mask this. russian soldiers everywhere. nothing was left to chance. the media controlled international observers recruited amongst the far right and they areies

certainly not where one claims them to be, and finally, figure so excessive that they are simply meaningless. how could 97% of people have voted when the crimean communities present -- representing 14% of the , the united nations will be created to ensure we do have -- do not witness such spectacles. law must guide between states. the acquisition of territory resulting from the use of force or from simple threats, it is something that cannot be recognized. what russia subscribed to back in the day is our code and our dna of our organization. solution,against the madam president, we have just

heard that nothing in the references toied serious attacks on human rights. were undermined, it was during the time of yannick kovacic. we are working to hold out their hands to all the various components of the ukraine society. nothing justifies what actions could be leading to fear, causing fear and minority populations. the populations in the ukraine, something by moscow. see us again, the reality of the situation, nor a legal just occasion as part of the territory of the sovereign state. even less so, to use a pretext to extend its own border.

we always recall minorities in the ukraine about language minorities must be protected. they are doing this. is not something the council should be worried about. human rights are being undermined. ukrainian social's are being killed because they refused to surrender. russia vis-à-vis the concerns of the international community, which have not responded to the good make rushonly to understand. future to plan for a with the russian federation.

one to stop them. they're active in eastern ukraine. make sure they do not do the same thing they did in crimea. put an end to the transparent worked. it has already managed to eliminate all european countries. to go further would be bad. the second call is for moscow to ocean -- open direct negotiations. russia for be clear about this. -- should be clear about this. no one here can decide future of the ukraine except ukraine itself. we have artie noted the first steps in this reckless gamble -- gamble. .he conflict a russia has moved we continue to urge russia to reason. the centralead community to spiral, which would simply soon or later run out of control and let it restrain the

reaction of ukrainians. thank you. >> i give the floor to the representative of nigeria. >> thank you very much. the tool for dialogue is resolving the crisis in ukraine is still open if not close. involved,he parties -- >> this is the eighth time in three weeks the security council is meeting in the ukraine. this underscores the seriousness with which the council views the matter and its commitment to address issues that have to do

with international peace and security. nigeria has consistently highlighted and stressed the need for dialogue between the parties directly concerned. to ensure the situation in the ukraine is resolved peacefully. warningirm our earlier that there are so many challenges with regard to peace and security. to contemplate adding another layer to existing ones and that all peaceful means must be further here at escalation of the situation by heightened rhetoric can only lead to grave consequences, including military confrontation . arms arey when nuclear

involved. not just for the ukraine. thiseport was clear on point. . regarding the situation in the ukraine, we welcome the monetarynt of a u.n. team throughout the country to establish the truth for violations. all to once again urges arrange dialogue and negotiation and to free the peaceful resolution. calling all concerned to respect the sovereignty and independence of the ukraine in line with the charter. i thank you.

>> i thank the representative of nigeria for that statement i give the floor to the russian federation. >> thank you so much. something truly historic took place. something our peoples have awaited for six decades now. in compliance with international law and democratic the seizures. and outside interference through a free referendum, people of crimea have fulfilled in the u.n. charter with documents, mainly the right to self-determination. russia.ning to they agreed to the crimean people's request. the relevant treaty has been

signed. the results are quite clear. votersan 82% of participated in the voting and more than 96 of them chose in favor of russia. -- is expression of the free will of the people of crimea. for a minute, i will move from my text. i was stunned they tried to discredit the referendum by using the arguments. back home with the police and tell. thisnian presidents know is an old and tested tradition in the -- in the elections if someone cannot come to the

booth, then the members of the commission come to visit him at home to afford an opportunity to i will not dwell on the history of the issue in any great detail. yesterday, couldn't stop it out yesterday. i will focus on a few aspects only. inhabitants,llion 1.5 million of russians, 350,000 ukrainians, but most of whom -- 290e to 2000, to the -- crimean's. regardless of what someone anywhere might call for in .reparation

the leader who come with a stroke of a pen, and violation of the nontransferable to the ukrainian soviet socialist republic, part of the state then, he did this without informing the population and not of useir consent. cared about the concerns of crimean's. citizens and many community activist repeatedly raised the -- is stating crimea are intrinsically russian land. it is only now the will and the free expressed choice of crimean people has been filled. we have taken note of a number who cannotpartners rid themselves of imperial colonial habit are attempting to propose their risks on other countries. recklessitical and

gambling of ukraine has led to such results that the people of crimea have spoken and have made their choice, as have the people of russia. a choice must be accepted and respected. turning now to the alarming situation in ukraine and international positions afforded to it to overcome its crisis. ukrainedo-friends of needs to understand the cause of the crisis not -- lies not with russia. individual ukrainian political forces and foreign -- the attempt to drive ukraine to make artificial choice to train the eu and russia to a large extent promoted the deep-seated and political crisis leading to the constitutional changes. seem western capitals continue to feel no shame in this. hacking people not ready to listen or exceed the views of

ukrainian people and work only dominated by radical and nationalist organizations and the racist, anti-semitic, and xena folk, or -- according to the parliament, freedom party. it is with them the eu is planning to in the near future and a political component association. in this respect, we are puzzled by the one-sided assessment of the situation in the field of human rights in the ukraine. --are especially powerful puzzled that not a word was set up the evidence that it was filed both on the order and on to pay aition forces pass for the use of force for the authority and power.

one cannot simply claim there has been no kidnapping of individuals, that there has been no attacks on journalists and human rights defenders, and people have been locked up for political reasons. one cannot claim the national inicals are not determined destroying historical fights. but there are no incidents which free up and see russian undercurrent -- anti-russian undercurrent. according to journalists, a --mists have been receiving awards. foreign correspondents have been prevented from visiting, and that they are even trying to scramble the retransmission of satellite-tv. parliamentembers of pushed their way and in front of

cameras eat up and took away the director general of the national television station of ukraine. first national tv station. authority? disqualification of the not see associates. and the violence against ukrainians and russians overall. stripeshis there is the -- instead of this, there is talks regarding the concerns in crimea. together, as a result of the efforts of the people and the self-defense forces, the crimean authorities have guaranteed all the rights without exception. we would like to especially draw your attention to the fact that

in -- in accordance with the treaty in the republic of crimea regarding to the russian federation in the republic of be threehere will eagle state languages. ukrainian, russian, and crimean's with the support of the whole of the russian people, will do everything in their to preserve peace and tranquility. no provocations will hold them in doing this, similar to what happened a few days ago where, with fire from an unfinished building across the ukrainian ,ilitary basis, two were killed and unarmed self-defense soldier and a ukrainian soldier. the attack was referred to by russian forces, referred to today, simply did not take ways. this is a planned provocation. they immediately seize upon this

by calling on the ukrainian military forces present in the ukraine to use weapons against fellow countrymen. with a stands ready oferal interest on the basis the broad, you turn -- internal come ukrainian dialogue in all particular reasons -- regions, the mechanism for settlement of the ukrainian council, they promoted by our aoposal of the setting up of group for ukraine. we await a response. we continue to aim to discuss proposals and on for filling agreement on september 21 area watching comprehensive reform in the ukraine, and putting an end to the provocations of radical

forces against the russian language population, and our fellow countrymen in the southeast and other parts of the ukraine. thehis end, one can use observers of the council of europe, as long as they implement a partial mandate and we have the necessary -- necessary modalities. thank you, madam president. >> i think the representative of the russian federation for that statement and now give the floor to the representative of the united states. >> thank you, madam president, and thank you susan secretary-general for your briefing. the representative of the russian federation began his intervention extolling the so-called referendum as embodying democratic procedures and having been conducted without outside interference. for its literary

greatness. what you just heard from the russian ambassador showed or imagination. -- more imagination. russia decided to rewrite its orders but it cannot rewrite the facts. the united states rejects russia's military intervention and landgrab in crimea. these actions, again, violate the territorial integrity of law, theinternational expressed will of most members , and the letter and spirit of united nations charter. two days ago, president obama and other world leaders put in place sanctions in response to russia's late in disregard for global opinion and the legal rights of ukraine. we are prepared to take additional steps of russian aggression or russian provocations continue. chamber, when the crisis

began, the russian federation described his intervention into crimea as a human rights protection mission. ofy claim the recent change government in the ukraine constituted such a danger to ethnic russians in crimea that military action was justified. some of its's briefing once again illustrates this crisis was never about protecting the rights of ethnic russians and was always about one country's ambition to redraw borders. bethere was ever a time to concerned about human rights in crimea, it is now. indicatell reports cases of harassment have been directed by russian allies against ethnic ukrainians. the community, which constitutes 12% of the population, is rightly fearful of again falling victim to deportation or dissemination. the crimean first deputy prime minister has recently announced crimean top cars will be evicted

from some of their land, which he claimed is needed for infrastructure projects. the body of a crimean top tire was discovered sunday. he had last been seen at a protest on march 3. his body reportedly shows signs of torture. russian troops are reportedly storming apartment buildings, housing ukrainian troops, border guards, veterans, and their families, threatening them and demanding their immediate partner -- departure. we are seriously concerned about civil society leaders come media restrictions, and journalists in crimea. the united states reports -- supports the rapid -- is instructive the government of ukraine has repeatedly welcomed their deployment and the russian federation has not.

today in vienna, again, russia was the lone country to block a monitoring mission. there, russia was dramatically outnumbered here it was the lone dissenting voice out of 57 countries. 56, it seems, had a different view. russian officials say they understand the urgency, but they vote with their feet. relying on their military forces and refusing to allow the deployment of those who could help defuse the crisis and prevent further violence. after hearing my russian colleagues after hearing my russian colleagues report, i see the obstruction. objective information is inconvenient to the russian sale. -- tale. we call on all parties to support these missions. we want to thank members for taking a strong stance on intervention in ukraine.

russia stands alone in its failed and zoological attempt to justify actions that cannot be justified. when this counsel accurately describe the referendum as invalid, only is able hands rose in opposition. declared thatsel the referendum cannot form the basis for altering these out as of crimea, -- the status of crimea, only a single hands rose stop the national legal status of crimea has not changed. a thief can steal property, but that does not or the right of ownership. in closing, let me emphasize again what russia has done is wrong as a matter of law, runs a matter of history, wrong as a matter of policy, and dean driscoll's what happens in crimea cannot be recognized as valid. we must stand