and i would say for the equity market as a whole, the answer is that valuations are in historically normal ranges. now, interest rates, long-term interest rates are low, and that is one of the factors that feeds into equity market valuations. so there is that linkage. so there are pockets where we could potentially see misvaluations in smaller cap stocks, but overall those broad metrics don't suggest that we are in obviously bubble territory. but we don't have targets for equity prices and can't detect if we're in a bubble with certainty. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. senator coats. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, chair, for your presentations here today and the answers. i want to just ask you if you'd be willing to step aside for a moment in terms of just responding in terms of representing the fed and give us some of your personal thoughts if you think it's appropriate relative to a couple of -- well, this question in particular. as i travel throughout indiana and talk to businesses, large, small and everything in between so many of the c.e.o.'s and owners of those businesses almost to a person indicate that they're underperforming and they're underperforming because of the uncertainties that they face relative to fiscal policies, relative to prospects of uncertainty about what their taxation is going to be and particularly regulatory policy.

now, essentially they say it's a disincentive to the private sector business investment which as we know is the foundation of job creation. your predecessor -- i asked your predecessor the question of whether or not -- what his opinion was relative to the policies that really have fallen and his answer was, we pretty much exhausted the major tools that we have to address some of these problems. he agreed these were disincentives for investment. sitting on an awful lot of unused capital. he said really that's a function for you people at the

other end of constitution avenue, and he's right, it is. my question is -- i think it was in your statement the new york fed, you made reference -- see if i can find it here. you made reference to the fact that it's going to be -- i quote you here. a gradual return over the next two to three years of economic conditions consistent with the fed mandate. and given that, would you be willing to give us some direction relative to the --

what legislative policies we could take or not fake and the consequences of either accelerating that movement to where we want to get to beyond the two or three-year period or disincentivizing, perhaps, pushing that out? what would you say that is causing a lot of businesses to underperform? >> so i agree with you. my own discussions with businesses, i hear exactly the same things that you're citing. concern about regulations, about taxation, about uncertainty, about fiscal policy. i guess one recommendation that i would give you is that long-term budget deficits, we can see in, for example, c.b.o.'s very long-term projections that they remain -- there is more work to do to put fiscal policy on a sustainable course, that progress has been

made over the last several years in bringing down deficits in the short term. but the combination of demographics, the structure of entitlement programs and historic trends in health care costs, we can see that over the long term deficits will rise to unsustainable levels relative to the economy and putting in place a package of reforms. ones i know these are very controversial matters but that would probably help confidence. as regulators ourselves in the aftermath of financial crisis, we also can see very clearly, for example, that the kinds of regulations we're putting in place during the process of doing that create uncertainty and burdens. we hear this, for example, from community banks all the time. and, you know, here i would say to some extent the regulations, we're doing this for a very

good reason. we had a financial crisis. it's important to make the financial system safer and sounder. and for our own part, we will try to make sure that we worry about regulatory burden, we try to design regulations that are different and appropriate for different sectors of the economy. i think it's important for us, too, to be sensitive to regulatory burdens in order to minimize its impact on the economy. but we are doing things that are important to make the economy safer and sounder. >> well, thank you for that answer. in closing here, because i notice my time is up, you join a long list of very responsible americans who have the experience and the expertise to give us some warnings about what may happen in the future and the consequences of our

inability to act over the last several years now in addressing these major problems that are going to have significant consequences on the economy of this country and on future generations. i don't know what it's going to take for us to summon the will to do what we all know that we need to do, but we -- i appreciate your adding your name to that long list saying you have a responsibility up here and you're not fulfilling that responsibility. thank you. >> senator casey. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. madam chair, thank you and welcome. it's good to be with you this morning. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions about jobs and manufacturing. i'll start with that and ask the question about the preparation for job growth and some of the investments i think we're not making in our children. but i'll start with the job picture. we had a lot to be positive about with all of the

cautionary notes that your testimony articulates. when i think about it from the national perspective, both good job numbers in the last couple months and even the recent report a lot less in the way of good news in terms of the labor participation rate, which i'm told is at a 35-year low. i noted, though, in your testimony that you said on page -- page 1 you said, and i'm quoting, during the economic recovery so far payroll employment has increased by about 8 1/2 million jobs since its low point and the unemployment rate has declined bout 3.75% since its peak, unquote. so that's good news in terms of the recent news as well as over a number of years but we still got a long way to go. i guess the real cautionary note, though, or the reason for concern or main reason for concern would be on labor force

participation. can you speak to that in terms of what you would hope to see or what you're concerned about with regard to that number? >> so, we have seen a substantial decline, especially over the last year or so, in labor force participation. i think it is clear that part of it is demographic, secular and will continue. it purely reflects the fact that we have an aging population and as people move into that 60's-plus age bracket, the amount they work declines notably in spite of the fact that current retirees are working more and participating more in the labor force than earlier vintages. but nevertheless, if we had a strong economy, even for that group, it would not surprise me at all if we didn't see more participation in the labor

force by retirees. in addition, we're seeing for all age groups, prime age workers and younger people, reduction in labor force participation. for young people it's partly related to going back to school but eventually, of course, those people will enter the labor force and seek jobs. especially in those nonretiree demographic groups, to me it's clear that the weak state of the labor market, partly explains why we're seeing a decline in labor force participation. so i will be looking very carefully at trends in labor force participation as the economy strengthens, as the unemployment rate comes down. we need to really figure out what portion of the labor force participation decline is secular and what portion is cyclical and that's what we're

going to be looking at very closely. i guess i would expect as the economy recovers we might see labor force participation strengthen rather than continue to decline. >> one thing we talk about a lot is the skills gap and the disconnect there between the jobs that we need to fill or the need -- that need to be created in the future and the skill level of folks that are seeking those jobs or looking for work in the marketplace. i guess one of the questions that i have for you, you look at trends all the time. you look at the economic impact of policies that we put in place here, and you see those trends and the kind of skills that folks would need for jobs of the future. i guess i'd ask you. my youngest daughter is a

junior in high school. if she were 3 or say, 2 or 3 years old right now, what do you hope she would get to be placed in the high-skilled jobs that we hope we have policies that has a strategy to get us to the point where we no longer have that skills gap? what would you hope that either i or -- in terms of a healthier smart start? >> i hope that you and society at large will make sure that she has access to a good college education. the gap in earnings between those with a college degree and those with less education has increased enormously. good opportunities to get advanced training in skills i think will clearly -- every bit of evidence suggests that will make a difference to her life-long earnings. >> i'll send you some questions for the record as well. thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> don't worry, madam chair. knowing senator casey, she will get a good education. >> i have no doubt. >> senator wicker. >> thank you, dr. yellen. this has been very enlightening. let me first just try to clean up a few things. in his very fine opening statement chairman brady got to a point where he said he was hopeful he would enlighten the committee on six specific points. there's no time for you to answer those. i would like to submit those questions as my questions for the record and ask you if you'll answer them on the record, will you do that? >> i'd be glad to. >> and the last is about transparency. also, i understand your reluctance to be tied down to specific predictions of when this or that will happen. but i do think we got a yes from you on one thing and that is when the asset purchase program will end. as i understand it, you have a

set of expectations for the rest of the year. and if those expectations are met, you expect the asset purchase program to end this fall. is that a yes? >> that is correct. if the labor market continues to recover and we continue to see -- see the evidence as pointing to inflation moving up over time to 2%, the committee is likely to continue taking further steps that would end the program next fall. >> in the fall of this year? >> correct. >> ok. and so -- and senator klobuchar said she saw no sign of inflation in the foreseeable future. you don't agree with that. and ideally inflation should increase to 2% and that would be a better result as far as you're concerned? >> 2% is the committee's longer

term objective, and we would not want to see a persistent deviation either below or above 2%. so it won't be at that level at every moment but we expect it to move up gradually over time back to 2%. >> great. you mentioned during your testimony today, maximum employment and full employment. would you just define those for the committee? >> i'm using those terms interchangeably. maximum employment is the wording that's used in the federal reserve act. it's our goal that congress defined for us. i'm using the term -- >> and what is -- could you use that to a percentage rate, what is maximum employment? >> so i determine maximum employment as meaning a level of employment in the labor market where people are able in

a reasonable amount of time to gain work -- >> so -- >> they're qualified. >> for today's purposes, you're not going to put a percentage point? >> i'm not going to put a percentage point. >> in terms of economic -- income inequality -- and let's get back to the metzer article in today's "wall street journal." he suggests that actually the policies of the obama administration and the federal reserve are responsible for the income inequality, and he says ironically despite often repeated demands for redistribution to lower income groups that policies pursued by the obama administration, supported by the federal reserve, have prished the -- accomplished the opposite. he goes on to say, voters should recognize that goosing the stock market through very low interest rates, not to

mention the subsidies and handouts to cronies, have contributed to that result. we'll leave the subsidies for another discussion. but don't you acknowledge, dr. yellen, that the interest rates, which you've achieved, have driven people to the stock market, therefore, goosing the stock market and contributing to this maldistribution of income? >> well, i would not deny that the level of interest rates affects the stock market. i would hardly endorse the term goosing the stock market. we have no target for stock prices. the policies that we've undertaken are meant to ease financial conditions in a whole variety of ways that will be conducive to generating greater spending and greater spending means that we create jobs

throughout the economy. so to think of that as something that is promoting an increase in income inequality i would take issue with. i think a stronger economy brings benefits to a wide variety of households throughout the economy, including lower income households who are gaining jobs. so we do probably have an impact on the stock market. we also an an impact on stock -- on housing prices, and house prices have come back up again. and for so many households, middle income households, that's their most important asset. that return of house prices to more normal levels i think has been a major benefit to many, many american households. they've seen themselves move from situations where they're underwater on their mortgages to being, you know, back in the

black. and it also helps give them access to credit if they want to send a kid to school or have an emergency or want to start a small business. and so there have been benefits in this policy and the policies we've pursued for main street as well as for those who hold equities in their portfolios. >> thank you. >> thank. senator sanders. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. yellen, welcome, and good luck on your new endeavor here. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, with your permission, i'd like to put into the record a recent bbc article entitled "study: u.s. is an oligarchy, not a democracy." mr. chairman, can i place that in the record? >> without objection. >> thank you.

madam chair, in the u.s. today, the top 1% own about 38% of the financial wealth of america. the bottom 60th own 2.3%. one family, the walton family, worth over $140 billion. that's more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people. in recent years, we've seen a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires while we continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. despite this, as many of my republican friends talk about the oppressive obama economic policies, in the last year charles and david koch struggled under these policies and their wealth increased by $12 billion in one year. despite the oppressive obama economic policies. in terms of income, 95% of new income generated in this

country in the last year point to the top 1%. now, a study, which i just introduced into the record, by two professors from princeton university, professor martin gillens and northwestern professor benjamin paige basically suggests that while historically we have considered our society to be a capitalist democracy, we may now have entered into a phase of an oligarchic society. given your power held by the billionaire class and their political representatives, are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over into an oligarchic form of society in which incredible economic and political power now rest with the billionaire class? >> so, all of the statistics on inequality that you cited are

ones that grately concern me and i think for the same reason that you're concerned about them, they can shape the determined availability of groups to participate equally in a democracy and have grave effects on social stability over time. and so i don't know what to call our system or how to -- i prefer not to give labels, but there's no question that we've had a trend toward growing inequality, and i personally find it very worrisome trend that deserves the attention of policymakers. >> thank you. i think the point that the professors are making and others have made is that there comes a point where the billionaire class has so much political power, where the koch brothers, now because of citizens united, able to buy and sell politicians, they have so much political power, at which point is that revirsible? that is a great concern to me. i want to go to another point.

some of my colleagues, especially in the house, believe that we can improve lives for the middle class and create jobs by completely repealing the estate tax which applies now to perhaps less than .1% of the wealthiest families in this country. would it make sense for you to give enormous tax breaks for the families of the top 1% of people in this country? >> so i've indicated that i share your concern with inequality, but i just i'm going to say on this that it's up to the congress to decide what's appropriate. there are a number of different ways to address it that certainly is on the list. >> all right. well, let me ask you another question. some of my friends in the house, the ryan budget and so forth, suggests one way to stimulate the economy, to create decent-paying jobs is to give more tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this

country and the largest corporations despite the massive wealth and income inequality we have right now. if we give tax breaks to the koch brothers who are worth $80 billion, do you think that will create jobs in this country? >> i think most of the evidence we have suggests that transfers to lower income people tend to be spent a larger fraction of the dollar is spent than when there's a transfer to a wealthy individual. but changes in tax policy -- so that's from the demand side. tax policy also has supply side effects that one should take into account. >> ok. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. representative paulsen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. yellen, thank you for being here and offering your testimony today. you mentioned several times that the unemployment rate is still too high and clearly we as elected officials who represent our constituency would agree with that. in april, you made some remarks to the economic club of new york.

at that time, you said that the central tendency of the federal market committee participant projections for the unemployment rate at the end of 2016 -- so this is still out a year and a half -- would be 5.2% to 5.6%. for inflation, the central tendency is 1.7% to 2%. you kind of mentioned the 2% today. if this forecast were to become reality, you mentioned, the economy would be approaching what my colleagues and i view as maximum employment and price stability for the first time in nearly a decade. so i guess i'm kind of wondering because you didn't want to put a number on maximum employment. in light of the unemployment being -- full employment or maximum employment is significantly higher at 5.2% to 5.6%, is that the new normal that you're potentially targeting for full employment? >> so this is a number that is purely a guess based on

empirical evidence that every member of our committee is asked to give each few months. it's what they think would be consistent with stable inflation rather than gradually rising inflation over time. and based on the evidence that they see -- these are just estimates and something that changes but their best assessment, most of them are in a range of 5.2% to 5.6%. now, when unemployment was as low as 4% previously, to some extent, that may be overshooting.

nothing that says that 5.2% to 5.6% is a floor on how low unemployment can go. for example, in the late 1990's unemployment fell well below those levels, but there may have been special factors. an increase in productivity growth and a strong dollar appreciation, the dollar that was holding inflation down and made that happy coincidence of very low unemployment and stable inflation possible. so at the moment, this is their best guess and it's where they envision the economy is being in 2016. >> you mentioned, too, it was nice -- well, in general with the april jobs numbers that came out it was nice to see the unemployment fall, right, to 6.3%, but the labor force participation rate which you said you wanted to look at the details of that labor force participation rate, it fell to essentially tying a low. that was the most concerns for me, 800,000 people that have

now left the work force, right, or the labor force has declined by 800,000. that's a pretty significant number. what do you envision the labor force participation rate be if we hit that 5.2% to 5.6% unemployment rate? >> it's hard for me to give you an estimate of that. we had a huge move. it is very unusual to see a .4% decline in the unemployment rate in a single month with a comparable move in labor force participation. we always tell ourselves and i'll state i think one should not make too much of any single month's numbers. my preference would be to look at those labor force and labor market statistics over three or six months to get a read on things. if we do that, what we see is the unemployment rates come down. for the last six months, job growth has been -- employment

has been gaining about 200,000 jobs a month and somewhat higher over the last three months. the labor force participation rate, it's bounced around, but it's been roughly stable. so it came down. it had gone up previously. over the last six months, it's been roughly stable. which is -- i think there is a declining labor force participation rate as a trend, so a stable labor force participation rate could signify that some cyclical slack in the labor market is gradually diminishing over time. so looking over three to six months i would say the patterns we're seeing are consistent with improvement in the labor market. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. representative cummings. >> chairman yellen, in february, senator elizabeth

warren and i wrote to you urging that a formal vote of the board of governors be required before the fed entered into consent orders over $1 million. my staff reviewed all fed enforcement actions between 1997 and 2013 and found that only about 2% resulted in penalties over $1 million. during a hearing before the senate banking committee on >> you answered and i quote, i do think it's appropriate for us o make changes and i fully expect that we will. yesterday, senator warren and i letter from sponse you, thaeupb you. in which you wrote, i agree that for the board e of governors to be fully involved in important decisions enforcement and supervisory matters. you went on to say, steps are underway to develop new processes and procedures for approval for

significant enforcement actions. you can tell me what specific underway for the board procedures to be changed to equire formal votes when all major enforcement actions and if so by what date would that occur. not the procedural hange you anticipate making what new processes and pr seeders of enforcement actions be introduced? it is in have met and the public record that we have number of meetings at this point over the last couple of discuss enforcement actions. we are participating in those with our staff early o that we can guide their handling of these matters. i think this is fully pledge that we i will continue to do so.

we have taken a vote on at least very important enforcement atter and i want to take a little bit more time working with the staff to decide exactly the guide hraoeupbgz will be for when we should delegate action is ard required. ou suggested a particular cutoff and want to think more define y about how to precisely which actions which require board votes when it's to vote.te for us but what i do want to pledge is the board will be very involved discussing major actions.ent we've done so. chair board of the governors when they terminated the independent agreed to a settlement in january 2013.

board formally approve the terminated the i.f.r.? >> the board did not vote on agreement under the procedures in place this was a delegated to the staff, but the staff consulted members of the board before they took those so the board did have input in an informal way those decisions were made, but there was no formal vote. four-, if i joined ith oversight chairman requesting that the fed and .c.c. produce documents relating to this decision and produced documents several weeks fed's d we received the documents yesterday and we are reviewing them. produced showed there was no reliable data or at the time you

terminated the i.f.r. but data that double digit rates. deep dives were planned to dentify it but be completed because the i.f.r. was determine nature. id you know this when the i.f.r. was terminated; did you know that? i.f.r. was terminated ecause it was decided that the process was too slow in terms of its time frame and its ability o get into the pockets of homeowners who had been harmed. it was a decision that the the lead in and the federal reserve went along with closely with ng community groups and looking at process that was taking lace with the independent

consult aants reviewing these files. it was not a happy out come. it was a horrible outcome. outcome. it's a very sad commentary what happened here. of time, but i will send you follow-up questions along with senator warren. them. , happy to answer >> thank you, representative chair. hank you for being here and your testimony and answering questions. you have a difficult job. we wish you well and we look to future hearings to come. the hearing is adjourned.

about yo ll i can't coverage of the senate health education and labor pensions committee 9:30 a.m. eastern. itafter f.d.r. came to power was a very clear line between and peculative versions services and things that a bank could do and the deposits it the services it provided to regular individuals and small businesses there. a very, very clear

distinction. he bankers were on the same side of f.d.r. and the population was on the same side f.d.r. and things became stable for several decades after that. ontrast that to what happened in the wake of the 2008 crisis hich has been a much more expensive crisis for the general the actual unemployment level not the tagline unemployment level, for to individuals throughout and relative to the ailouts and the subsidies that have been given since and frank along and did nothing like issecting speculation from depositors and traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationship 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street saturday night sunday night and at 9:00 on "afterwards." tv and online our

book club selection is "it calls you back" by former gang member and community activist. other readers to discuss tv.org. at book >> half the reason i did this martha because when she arrived in berlin with the she was in love with what she referred to as the nazi revolution. enthralled by the nazis which really struck me as a given what we g all know, hindsight. how could be enthralled with it this she was. unique larson one of 41 voices from our q & a conversations. by public affairs books. now available at your book seller. the house passed a resolution

official in r irs was mpt of congress that investigating charges her targeted conservative groups. she was exercising her fifth mendment right not to incriminate itself. members defeated the resolution. first from oversight committee chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. 2013 the 22nd, ommittee started a hearing to investigate that the irs had in flawed process in tax wing applications for

exempt status. i subpoenaed lois learner to at that hearing because he was head of irs's exempt organization division, the executed and targeted conservative groups. irs most ivisions the of lved with the targeting worthy eo determinations unit in incinnati and the technical unit in washington, d.c. headed learner. before the hearing her lawyer woulded the community she enjoke the fifth amendment privilege and decline to answer our committeefrom members. nstead of doing so, she read a voluntary statement self-selected statement included declarations of her innocence. -- said

order. speaker is not in she said, i have not done wrong.g i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any irs or regulations and i have not provided false information this or any other committee. refused to answer our uestions and invoked her fifth amendment right and wouldn't answer any questions about she made during her opening stay statement. is not how the ifth amendment is meant to be used. it's protection. shield."

>> a witness with cannot come before the committee to make a and serving statement refuse to answer questions. you don't get to use the public hearing to tell the press and your side of the five,.and then invoke the additionally, mr. speaker, when evoking the fter fifth, when asked about previous documents,he made in she answered and authenticated went back to asserting her fifth amendment rights. things have inting come to this point. lois learner had almost a year reconsider a decision not to answer questions to congress. meantime she gave a no-strings -- will not to suspend. >> i would be happy any time the chair tells me my time is expired. expired. me is

>> thank you. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. >> thank you. >> in the meantime after she gave a no strings attached interview to the justice department. to the press entirely voluntarily before a gathering. her position with respect to ompiling with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. she won't. piecestimony is a missing of an investigation into irs targeting. have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds of thousands the facts lead to lois learner. balance of my time. the st shy of one year ago invector general protects administration before that the irs had used inappropriate

applicants for tax exempt status. he very same day chairman went on national tv before he received a single document or a single witness and said the following, "this was president'sng of the political enemies effectively nd lies about it during the election year. "republicans have spent the past to prove these spent more fpl they than $14 million responding to congress and produced half a pages of documents. 40 witnesses wed we have not found any evidence of white house involvement or motivation. yesterday i issued a report with nearly 40 s from

interviews conducted by the committee today and these are by the s called majority. these interviews showed that there was no evidence of any white house bias.tion or political instead they describe in detail terms wereppropriate first developed and how there inadequate guidance in how to process the application. et me be clear i'm not defending miss learner. i wanted to hear what she had to say. i had questions about why she was unaware for the criteria after it as created and why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to congress. vote to violate an individual's fifth amendment want it t because i hear what she has to say. a much greater principal is at here today.

the sanctity of the fifth mendment rights for all citizens of the united states of a path i will not walk hat has been tread by senator mc cart mckarts mc carthy. t would be a pointless and costly exercise. senator mc carthy pursued a dismissedse the judge it. the supreme court said that the witness does not wave her rights by processing her innocence. in addition, more than 30 have now t experts come forward to conclude that botched the contempt procedure by not giving miss proper warnings at march fifth hearing when he rushed to cut off my microphone democrat had a chance

to sutter a syllable. that the actions ere, quote, fatal to any subsequent prosecution. the experts who came from are from all across the country and across the political spectrum. a member of the republican lawyers association and a law professor concluded that learner and i quote, would li ikely have learner and a defent to the supreme court precedent. that.dn't say the republican national lawyers association said that. squandering our valuable resources pursuing a contempt that more than 30

independent experts have concluded would fail in court. release the nearly 40 transcripts that are not yet public and allow all americans unvarnished facts and with that i reserve. >> gentleman reserves and is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield two the gentleman from ohio. >> gentleman from ohio is recognized. i thank the chairman for yielding. here's what we know. was at the center right from the ghetto. she came from front of the multiple and made factual statements. when you do that and when you make all kinds of assertions you to say, now iance amendment ifth privile privileges. to be e agreed

interviewed. she's willing to sit down with he people who can put her in jail but not willing to wave our questions. > here's what we also know, we're still the new irs said it could take almost two years to get all the e-mails. internal er and the systematically targeted american citizens. hink about that for a second, mr. chairman. about your first american rights. that's of speech, political. to speak out against your overnment, that's what they targeted. to get to the truth we need to can to compel we ms. learner to come forward and the questions so the

american people can understand why their first amendment rights targeted because we know -- we know theville investigation justice is tment of a sham. hey've already leaked to the "wall street journal" and they had the president of the united states say no corruption and the person leading the nvestigation is a maxed out contributor to the president's campaign. he only route to the truth is through the house of representatives and compelling learner to answer our questions. that's why i'm supporting the resolution and i hope my support it as well. fundamentalhis most right. we want her simply to answer the questions. >> gentleman from maryland is recognized. that the person

the fifth ve amendment right by making that were not making tatements that were not under oath. thank the ranking member for his leadership. not here to defend lois i'm here to but defend the constitutions and every american's right to assert as not toamendment so incriminate themselves. member of this pod i did should be as committed to thing.he same 'm also here to defend the integrity of the committee and the rules of that committee. fifth arner pled the amendment before our committee professed her

innocence pure and simple. independent legal experts proceedings were constitutionally deficient to bring a contempt proceedings. were constitutionally deficient because the chair did overrule miss learner's aamendment assertion and order her to answer the questions. that deficiency is to e, there is no reason move forward with this today. bigger ve on to the picture. 501 c four that was in the cue before the irs could certified. they didn't need to be in the cue. hether this was a list of progressive organizations and conservative according saeugsz using to somehow

to get to the thousands of pplications that they had they ould have moved aside and self certified. there have been 39 witnesses committee and there smoking gun. the other side is locked and loaded. they're just shooting blanks. yield back. maryland an from reserve. gentleman from california is recognized. >> if they hadn't mated their applications perhaps they the n't have been asked abusive questions like what books do you read, who are your inappropriate questions that happened. with that i yield one minute to distinguished member from virginia. >> gentleman from virginia is minute. d for one >> mr. speaker, thank you, gentleman, chairman from california. rise today in

support -- in strong support of resolution to hold miss lois learner in contempt. of this resolution should not be taken lightly. u.s. house of the of representatives is a serious one that must be taken only when duly warranted. in my mind doubt conditions have been met for today's action. are few er, this government abuses more serious irs to punish american citizens for their political beliefs. very idea of the irs being sed to intimidate and silence ritics of a certain political philosophy is eegregious. egregious that it has practically been a cliche of corruption for

decades since president nixon's administration. speaker, unfortunately under miss ance learner's watch this corruption too real. conservatives were routinely irs leading up o the 2012 election unjustly and with malice. deprived of d were their civil rights to an law.ased administration of these moms and dads simply trying to play within the rules make their voices heard were left waiting without answers election day had come and gone. groups were not targeted as my colleagues across the claim.ould like to groups were tive

deliberately singled out because f their political beliefs and subjected to delays, inappropriate questions and denials. mr. speaker, the american people owed a government they can trust, not a government they fear. the only way to rebuild this rust is to investment exactly how these abuses occurred and to happen hat they never again. whether you're a conservative or republican or democrat or hold any other olitical or philosophical positions your rights must be protected from this dministration and all those that come after it. a full year lois learner has refused to testify house. this detailed up and gave

assertion of her innocence and hen refused to answer questions. later spoke with d.o. j.attorneys. decided ic servant she to fore go cooperation and truth transparency. 2,013, miss learner vocced in one uncovered e-mail that perhaps she could get a job with organizing for america president obama's political arm. ur committees have found miss laur earner used her position equal pro section t -- protection undr law. she risked exposing and may ctually have exposed

confidential taxpayer information in the process. day after day, action after exposed iss learner herself servant to political philosophy rather than the people. this is why we're taking extraordinary action to the justice for criminal prosecution. and why we will request a investigate el to this case. ot only has the president asserted that there is, quote, a smidgen inof corruption but leaks from the epartment of justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. that's not surprising as a top donor to the president's role gn is playing a key

in their investigation, potentially compromising any semblance of independence and justice. independent, non partisan needed role cutor is in their to ensure a fair investigation this americans can trust. mr. speaker, the american people deserve to know the full context are taken.e actions as 2010, leaders were urging the irs to take action against conservative groups. why was the decision ade to take action against them? the american people, miss deserve employers answers. they deserve accountability. know that this no never happen again matter what your political persuasion