. i travel around the country and meet with state and local law enforcement now in 44 field offices and i'm hearing good things. i think we're in a good place, but i want to rest on that because there's always something i haven't thought of yet. i want to continue that dialog to improve it. >> one of the areas i found, local police now have access to classified information more than they did, but it's my understanding they're not taking advantage of that the way they can. is there something that we can do to help those numbers to make it easier for them or to encourage them to get more of that information? > i don't know than just encouraging. i'm encouraging all leadership to at least get the secret level clearance so that if you need to you can see things very, very quickly. and we're getting there. people are very, very busy and they also know that their officers and detectivives on our

task forces are cleared. we'd like to encourage it more and more. >> i want to thank you for your meeting with me and our shared interest in information sharing with local and state officials. i just wanted to reinforce the fact that even though i think you're only the seventh director, there will be a time that all of us go from our different positions and that's he importance of having things in writing what progress we're making in terms of having something in riting -- writing in that regard in terms of information sharing. >> i think that makes good sense. in eight years and 51 years i will be leaving this job and i would like to make sure that it doesn't depend on people but that the processes documented. > if i can add real briefly? in answer to your question about

un-- classified information, we have a joint program in which we bring state and local police officers and firefighters to the national count trarism center where they have all access to the classified information on a basis of detail for two years. they even help us to design products that are classified fide and turn those into unclassified products. working through they're channels and communities so we can get what we're seeing at the classified national level and turn it into information that's usable by police officers on the street and firefighters around the country and that's been a very successful program over the last few years. >> i appreciate your efforts making that easier to get. i yield back, mr. chair. >> chair recognizes mr. perry. >> thank you very much for your service to the nation. you have a very difficult job. it's a privilege to be with you

here today. all of my questions i would hope you with answer. i want to recognize the confines of operational security. still within the ability of whatever you can answer the questions. mr. secretary, what are the department's mechanisms in place that would prevent known american and european citizens fighting for terrorist organizations in syria and iraq from reening or entering the homeland? >> first of all, congressman, we have our no fly list, that's the first thing that comes to mind. second, general aviation security, though unless you're carrying something suspicious, aviation security in and aof itself wouldn't necessarily pick you up. passenger travel data, a.p.i. data, p. and r date you aa, the more i can learn about travelers the better. we have a fair amount. i think we do a little better

from visa waiver countries. passengers are required to answer questions on an electronic stem for travel organization. we have as a condition for participation in the visa waiver it requires insurance. we have general security within each of these other governments. environment, it think we all agree we need to be particularly engaged in making sure these mechanisms work of reportedly. >> i defer to you folks.

seemshat i hear it somewhat passive. asking a passenger to disclose information that is vital when their motives might be otherwise seems less than up month. i'm looking at whether you have coulding new that you devote and whether you have something new we should looking at. >> we can prevent them from entering the country. or if they are not on the no-fly list they can have secondary screening. go ahead.

>> there is a number of opportunities and layers of traveling toanyone the united states. arriving at the border is only one point in time. one of the changes from 13 years ago is to create consolidated base. across thensolidate border of every non-suspected terrorists we have information about. that turns into an unclassified watchlist and a number of other agencies that have a screening possibility. visaone who applied for a and everyone who seeks to travel , their information is screened against that database, so when

they put their name in the him, checkedormation is not to see if they are on the watchlist. there is additional screening or they are stopped from entering the country. >> i am just curious. isis social media account have called for where they raise awareness for entry into mexico as a viable option. do you think we should be thisrned they would use propaganda to breach the southern border and use that as an operational tool? thatd we be aware of possibility? >> we need to be aware of all

the ways someone can enter this country. overriding priority to prevent that from happening. we need to allocate our resources for where we see a threat. numbers.ll we have seen nothing to indicate there is real effort to use the southwest border to get into the country. >> think you. recognizes mrs. clark. >> i want to a plot all of your efforts to keep the american people safe and the cure. my -- secure. progressedwe have

and set up an infrastructure that has kept our nation they've from foreign terrorist attack. you continued success. talk about cyber security. in particular for the workforce. -- and statel aid law and forth and has challenges in having investigators and prosecutors. we know that the pool of qualified candidates are limited because individuals involved in investigating cyber crime are highly enforced specialist with technical skills. once an examiner specializes in cyber crime it takes up to 12

months for the individual to become proficient in the use of those skills. competitiveness of the arena, competing with the private sector. when we know it is a challenge to recruit, retain them from private sector competing, and trained them with changing technology and increasingly .ophisticated techniques how are we dealing with manpower issues within the agent the? well we are not necessarily -- seeing the nexus between advanced terrorist through the use of the

iternet, i can envision feeds money into these enterprises. would you share your thoughts? to ournt is critical efforts. i have engaged in recruitment effort and have encouraged young people in graduate schools in to consider aidor career or at least a short time before they go into the private dhsr -- sector working for to serve their country. get thema lot he can

serving even for a short time. congress can help us with this. enhance an effort to fiber hiring capability. will act oncongress that. i need help attracting cyber talent. >> what about the issue of retention? is it evidence low? how do we maintain -- ebb and flow? >> i just lost a member of my team to citigroup. there is an issue of retention. the financial sector are has more capability to offer it is coolpackages. orking for the fbi.

back he figured it out. it is much cooler to work for the fbi. >> i was joking. oversee security before going to government. i used to recruit from that side for talent. the amount of young folks for talent we cannot compete with. you are not going to make much of a living doing what we do. you are going to make a life unlike any other because you are going to be saving lives. it is a place we can and should -- shouldring compete. >> the chair recognizes mr.

sanford. >> think you. -- thank you. in the hearings about threats to the homeland, we are going to take a fairly significant vote. i would be curious to year each on what to vote for today. >> i would say that the plan the president has put forward to -- isil is aold strong plan in many person -- respect. we have got to work to support the effort and take the fight directly to isil. i think it is incumbent upon congress to act upon the theorities we requested.

we the president has said cannot expect to deal with this overnight, and it is going to take an enduring sustained effort. will support our efforts. impressednue to be with your skills. what i ask is the biggest deficiency. refer you to the state department and defense department congress man. i believe our plan is a strong for defeating icicle. >> it is the past. i understand. dumping i think that can or should comment on. that is the thing i can or

should comment on. >> the study of war talked about how is it you impact your enemies center of gravity. thoughople have argued it is doing something, we are the center ofng gravity and their ability to do harm to the united states. if you could pick one thing, what do you think would be their primary weakness, the center of impact thet would outcome? >> let me answer from my experience. important that we enemy to recruit

faster than we can capture or kill the enemy. in particular when it comes to the homeland. along with the and ourof our military partners overseas to take the --ht direct the to isolate, the fight directly to isil, there has to be an effort in engaging potential extremist threats here at home. these groups in the current age are very good at rob again that, at recruitment, without having to recruit someone or indoctrinate them in a terrorist camp. i am focusing on countering .xtremism at home together we are focused on counteract the the literature

and propaganda, the notion isil is an islamic state. it is a group of murderers and kidnappers who commit genocide. they are depraved individuals who have captured world ttention. it has got to be a comprehensive effort that involves multiple agencies. >> icam down to 30 seconds, so let me get to my last question. -- i see that i am down to 30 seconds, so let me get to my last question. with roughly 50% operational border,on the southern why not simply build a fence? i would be curious to hear your quick thoughts, yes or no, why not complete build a fence?

>> he is going to give the past so i can pitch it acted him. -- back to him. >> what we do on the southern depends in large part on the resources congress is willing to give us. my recommendation is the most effective, efficient use of our resources is a risk based strategy. wallnot believe building a along the entire southwest order is an appropriate use of tax dollars. wallbuild a 15 foot someone is going to build a 16 foot ladder. we have the technology, and we need more. >> a might build a 16 foot wall, but he would not allow school-aged children to walk up

to officers and hand themselves over. >> the situation we faced this summer was one where many of these kids wanted to get caught. are dealing with that kind of situation, it's important to damage trade that if you come here -- to demonstrate that if you come wee you will be sent out. engaged in a public message campaign. down that road, we need a partner in congress. i didn't get one this number. i asked for money to help pay for our efforts to step up order security, and we didn't get help. but i have many thoughts on that.

>> the chair recognizes mr. richman. >> thank you to the witnesses, who play a great role in protect the -- protecting. i have heard it said before cyber security and homegrown terrorists are what keeps us up cyber security -- homegrown terrorism could be someone on the computer trying know what toc. we do to make sure they are equipped for those kinds of things. in louisiana we have shipping it handles over 1.2 million euros of oil a day.

barrels of oil a day. how confident are we we are communicating enough with eight police, local police, wildlife officials, and other departments to make sure our facilities are sureed and to make intelligence sharing is there and state and local police have done what they need to do to have clearance? welcome would r the opportunity to be able to share more with state and local in terms of classified information, once they have a security clearance and background check, i think it is in our interest to do that.

i have been impressed with the level of participation we get from state and local law enforcement. i think in some areas of the country the relationships are better than in others. i have is a did a number of ports. i have been to a coast guard station in new orleans. i have been to a number of court. with --he in impressed in impressed with our cooperation with local authorities. we can do a better job. jobsauthority is one of my while in office. >> you talked about resources. what resources do you think we can provide local government to help with homeland security?

i know you have offered license plate tanners, and they can apply for grants, but in a city like new orleans that brings in 9 million visitors a year, outside of just the area like the ports, assets like that could be very valuable. the question becomes what do you think the role of the federal statement is to assist police and getting the equipment that would make the country more safe, especially when you have a van -- events. >> through our grants we find a

number of different row graham, the ability to provide equipment the ability to provide equipment. i want to make sure we have our formula is correct. sure our grant making around the country is at appropriate levels. ask you a question. the extent your intelligence sharing and effectiveness also goes hand in hand with the of localnd competence police departments, you do a great job, but if they are not -- do youd competent

have a mechanism to let members of congress know that the police department is lacking in areas that could make the community unsafe? i think they would take great when they make sure the police department are focused on it. we may need to give them an .xtra push can you provide that information, and the youth the cases? >> i don't know the answer. that.ay we don't focus on when we see a problem we try to work on it. the answer is i don't think so. >> i am not sure i have seen an actual mechanism.

we work through dhs and the outreach we have with state and i agreew enforcement. that it is our first line of defense against any homegrown attack. >> if you see any of my law and forth and chief don't get it, please let me know they don't get it. >> thank you for being here. well.h you i know we will be talking about that personally. it speaks volumes about a new with state and local

coordinating and working together, which is the best formula. leadership, i cannot tell you how much i appreciate it. with that, this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

some of the u.s. house debate on arming syrian rebels. yellen on monetary policy. coming up on the next "washington journal," marcy kaptur discusses training syrian rebels to fight isis. rohrabacher talks about u.s. defense and foreign-policy. then, are series on higher education continues. "washington journal" is live every morning on 7:00 eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. polls todays to the to vote on whether to become an independent nation.

after 300 years as part of the united kingdom. starting at 5:30 p.m. eastern, we will bring you live bbc coverage of the results. camhe 2015 c-span student competition is underway. the three branches and you. how the three branches have affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes to win $100,000. studentcam.org. >> our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. live coverage of the arkansas governors debate with mike ross .nd asa hutchinson

live coverage of the iowa governors debate. jack catch.ad and -- hatch. aftern 2, book tv's words. scharf talks about life on earth and the current debates on how it began. storm about his life as a double agent. this weekend, the war in recommissioned -- warren commission. staffl members and describe their experience.

then, the warren commission findings with walter cronkite and dan rather. our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. , or send us al us tweet. conversation.n like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> in the house wednesday, members voted to authorize the president to arm and train syrian rebels to fight the terrorist group isis. here is part of the debate that happened before the vote to read -- before the vote. madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding the time. i rise today to speak on behalf of something that i am for and

that is the chairman's amendment as he has presented it. you know, madam speaker, i think that for so many of us who represent the men and women in uniform who comprise our fighting forces and who have been so diligent in this battle, in this war on terrorism. we look at these votes and certainly it causes us concern, and we know that the measure that the house is taking up is a measure as requested by the president. we recognize that. and we recognize also the severity and importance of the issue. madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct.

the staff will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. you know, this is an issue that should require the full attention of every member and every staff member of this body. and i think that we all approach this, i do, with a lot of estions, and we realize that what the commander in chief has asked for is really in the opinion of so many of the men and women that i represent, a

half measure. i wish we would see more leadership, and i am hopeful in the days to come we will see leadership from our commander in chief. that is what the men and women deserve, and that is what the american people deserve. as we seek to protect our homeland. i wish that we could stand here and say, this administration has learned their lessons. because they so mishandled the drawdown in iraq. and the rhetoric of al qaeda being on the run was truly a disservice to our military forces and to our men and women in uniform and to the american people. it would be my hope that as we take a first step that we resenter our focus and commit to

annihilating isil from the face of the earth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. if the threat from isis is real. all of us who have seen the violence and the barberism of isis. the rapid advance of isis militants within iraq and syria an immediate threat to these countries and the region. no one should be under any delusion about what will happen if the u.s. sits this one out.

if unchecked, the isis threat will grow and become even more difficult to address down the road. and directly threaten our nation. as we have seen since president obama authorized limited air strikes against isis in august, we have the ability to mitigate the isis threat. but we cannot defeat isis by ourselves with u.s. air strikes. thomas friedman said it well in the "new york times," and i quote, isis loses if our moderate arab muslim partners can unite and make this a civil war within islam. a civil war in which america is the air force for the sunnis and shiites through decency versus those of barbarism. it is about them and who they want to be.

it as i see is it an important aspect of u.s. assistance under this amendment in the training of syrian rebels is that it will be an occasion for nations with the sunni majority to join in a battle against the fanatical sunni isis. hopefully this can lead to expanded involvement of other nations in this battle. iraq's me time, it as see a majority with our active encouragement finally provides full rights and participation for its sunni and kurdish minorities. so amidst all the difficulties and the challenges and they are serious and many, this amendment can hopefully serve as a steppingstone, as a steppingstone to a broad based

effective coalition against the spread of isis. our country can provide air support, can provide intelligence, and other logistics. but in the end it cannot achieve for the people of syria and iraq on the ground what they can only do for themselves. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to my friend, the colleague, the chairman of the committee on homeland security, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the gentleman from california, the chairman, whose amendment i support here today and i will support any measure that will lead to the destruction of isis. this administration has known about this threat for over a year. and it wasn't until the two

beheadings of american journalists and a british aide worker that the american people really understood the pure evil that is isis. the white house has been sending mixed messages. and words do matter. finally, i believe this administration realized despite its flawed narrative over the years, what the threat from isis really is. in fact, general democracy, the chairman of the joint chiefs said, to fully defeat isis we have to go into syria. i agree with him. we must cut off the head of the snake wherever it exists. and it does exist in syria. while limited in nature, this authorization will begin the process to do just that by vetting, equimming, -- eequipping, and training moderate -- equipping and training moderate forces in syria. i did visit with pentagon officials and i got greater

confidence. i do believe the numbers are a little bit too low, but the broader strategy under general allen is to lead a coalition not only of nato allies but of these moderate sunni nations to build a ground force in syria which currently does not exist. it is vital, madam speaker, that sunni moderates stand out, sunni moderates and arab nations step up to the plate to defeat in combat sunni extremists in their own back beyond a reasonable doubt. while this is a step in the right direction, i believe that long-term the administration needs to come forward with a comprehensive strategy, one that the american people and congress can debate, which could be fully authorized by congress. and in closing, madam speaker, there is nothing more important that we debate up here, that we talk about here, that we vote on up here than matters of war and peace. it is for that reason that i support this amendment. for if we do not hit isis

overseas, they will certainly hit us in the united states. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to this amendment. and i don't take that lightly. i spent 18 years on the armed services committee, and about 12 years on the homeland security committee. and with any decision like this, we have to weigh what we know and what we don't know. we know that if left unchecked isis would become a direct threat not only to the united states but possibly to the entire world. and that is why we are going after them currently in iraq. with partners that we know we can trust, such as the kurds.

we know we cannot sit on our hands, close our eyes, and hope that isis goes away. hat's why we need a good plan. we know that we cannot do this alone. that we need a committed international coalition to stop isis. so the president says we have a coalition of 40. it's interesting because i remember the iraq war and the coalition. some of our coalition members sent one person. i'd really like to know who our coalition is and what they are really going to do before i vote for any plan. what don't we know? we don't know how moderate these syrian rebels really are. in fact, some of my syrian constituents are americans that live in orange county have told me that there are no moderates left, or worse, that the moderates, given the choice

between losing or assad, or isis, went to isis. and they say people are going to fight against isis. we don't know if somewhere down the line they will turn our guns right back on us. if in fact, that is one of the scariest things that we have to face. or we simply don't know if we can trust in an uncontrolled war torn, destabilized country, who do we trust? we can look back, for example, at what happened in central america. and how the rebels there, who were armed by the united states, when asked for innocent civilians, this blood will be on our hands when that happens.

we need a winning strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. now, we are in an election season and everybody says this isn't political, but i know, i have been talking to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some are wondering what they do with seven weeks away from an election, and i've got to tell you, this is not a political vote. the last time people took a political vote in this house, it was on the iraq war, and many of my colleagues say it was the worst vote they took. . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, madam speaker. this proposal just compms one piece of the puzz -- examines

one piece of the puzzle. the congress should have come to full authorization to put all of our options on the table with no limitations. isis is part of the radical islam threat which the 9/11 commission identified as a serious threat to u.s. national security and to world peace and stability. i have serious reservations about the president's plan to train and equip the so-called moderate opposition in syria because we don't want isil to get even more of our equipment and arms as it did in iraq. isil is not the only terror group in syria, madam speaker, nor is it the only hurdle before stability in syria and iraq. there are dangerous terror groups in syria that are waiting to take up the mantle should isil fall and, of course, assad is responsible for the deaths of over 200,000 people. last year the president failed to act militarily when assad

used chemical weapons against his own people. we need a plan that needs to remove assad alongside the destruction of isil and other terror threats. even though i'll vote for the mckeon amendment, we still won't be approaching this situation in a comprehensive manner that is required. we were successful in isolating iran with sanctions until we unraveled that with these nuclear negotiations. we can do the same in syria. i'm afraid that this misguided appropriations approach in iran will preempt many to acquiesce and take a deal that will undermine our national security and leave iran with enrichment capabilities. that, madam speaker, is a real and present danger in the middle east -- a nuclear iran. this could be a calamity for the region and u.s. national security interests, such as the safety and security of our strong ally, the democratic jewish state of israel. yesterday, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, revealed that the use of military forces on the

ground may be needed in syria if our military officials believe that it is absolutely necessary to use the u.s. military on the ground, i would fully support that. we cannot take anything off the table and showcase for the terrorists what we are not willing to do. the full range of the united states political, economic and military power must be brought to bear against this radical threat. announcing to the enemy of self-imposed limits on the part of our arsenal is signaling we do not possess the necessary will to prevail against radical islam. i thank the chairman for the leadership and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished minority whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the gentleman for his

leadership. i thank mr. mckeon for his leadership. we will see today a bipartisan action, bipartisan action on behalf of america, on behalf of its security and on behalf of our international partners in confronting terrorism. madam speaker, today the house is fulfilling one of its most important responsibilities, to protect our national security and defend our interests overseas. among those interests is to prevent the dangerous isil terrorist group from spreading and threatening american personnel, our allies and innocent civilians. the amendment before us will authorize the president to train and equip moderate syrian opposition to degrade and syria. isil in iraq and no sanket wears, no place -- sanctuaries, no place to hide.

isil is already threatening americans and our allies in the middle east and europe, and if left unchecked, it will surely threaten us here at home. this amendment is congress' opportunity to demonstrate unity in support of the president's strategy in providing him with the authorization he needs to help train and equip our regional partners to go on the offense against isil. isil has already murdered, captured soldiers, innocent civilians, journalist, including, of course, two americans, and members of religious communities targeted for their faith. there are no more -- they are no more than a collection of terrorists imposing their fanatical objectives on others by force, violence and barbarism. isil constitutes a duo threat.

they pose a counterterrorism threat to the united states and our regional partners, and they represent a destabilizing force in the region. madam speaker, we cannot ignore the challenge that isil presents to america and to the world. there is no question that there will be challenges, but we no impurecally that the cost of doing nothing is far too great. the president was right to wait until the government had formed that we're ready to move against isil. americans do not want american men and women on the ground. congress has an important role to play in this effort, and this amendment ought to be a strong and clear message to the world that the american people, through their elected

representatives, will join those in the region to prevent the terrorist group isil from running rampant across the middle east. it is a message to our allies and regional partners that our nation is prepared to train and equip those who are working to stop isil's advance. it's a message to the world that we are united in our resolve to meet this threat. we clearly may have differences on this house floor, but we are americans when it comes to defending our people and our country. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, with regard to the underlying bill, the continuing resolution, let me make some rief comments. house republicans have chosen not to repeat their government shutdown from last year. i think they're making a wise

decision. there are things i would change in this bill, just as i know there are things my friends on the republican side would change in this bill. that's compromise. that's the legislative process. that's what our founding fathers envisioned. that in fact is governing. i am hopeful that this continuing resolution will give congress the time it needs to complete work on appropriations for the fiscal year 2015 and that meets our obligations to the american people and to america's future. we need a budget that embraces fiscal sustainability while investing in job growth and competitiveness so we can grow our middle class. while it's important that congress moves forward with this 72-day funding bill, i'm disappointed, madam speaker, that we're not extending the export-import bank's charter for multiple years. not doing so is another example of undermining our competitive

position for the world and the creators. of our job cnbc pointed out last week, at first glance it seems like a congressional deal -- one additional minute? mr. smith: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. at first glance it might seem like a congressional deal to extend the export-import bank's charter would be good for the beleaguered institution which supports america with loan guarantees and credit assistance. in fact, cnbc says it's the exact opposite. an extension till june could be a death sentence for the bank. i sincerely pray it is not. congress has a responsibility to make sure the bank's charter is extended beyond june. we need a multiyear re-authorization along the lines of the one proposed by chairwoman waters and representative denny heck.

actually, it's ranking member waters. the export-import bank is instrumental in helping small businesses access foreign market and uncertainty over its future has already cost american businesses lucrative trade deals. i urge us between now and june to come together in a bipartisan way to move forward with legislation that achieves this goal. i believe that the house is allowed to vote -- house's allowal to vote will achieve that. i will vote for the amendment and for final passage of the continuing resolution, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i think it's in the best interest of america, the best interest of our national security and i urge this house to act in a way that will make our constituents proud and >> ukrainian president

poroshenko will have a joint session of congress. you can see his remarks live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on the next "washington journal," representative marcy kaptur discusses the house vote on training syrian rebels to fight isis. rohrabacher talks about u.s. defense and foreign-policy, including the threat posed by isis. then, are series on hire education continues. washington journal is live every morning on 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. here are a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. the rooseveltg

intimate history with ken burns and the cowriter. very excellent. do americans need a lesson in history and politics and truth. but don't know if you plan ahead ken in depth schedule, but burns would be absolutely perfect for november. if you get my gist. early november. you would be doing this country a huge favor. >> i have listened to c-span for many years. i think that you present aright wing think tank and american enterprise institute as being experts and that they have some kind of knowledge. wealth,, they promote they trash the regular american citizenry.

i think it is high time that you present a more balanced view. >> i can't believe the people that are calling in the think you're liberal or conservative or one way or the other. that thegot people on people in the audience can never get any access to except through a program like yours. everybody, the only thing i wish is that you could spend more time on the hearings, but you can't because as long as some nit wit from the house or senate is going to talk until midnight, you are bound to watch that. i think c-span should be mandatory watching if you are to be allowed to vote. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a

tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> federal reserve chaired janet yellen spoke to the board wednesday about the fed's decision to keep a key interest rate low as the economy continues to grow at a slow pace. her remarks following a meeting of the federal >> good afternoon. the federal open market committee concluded its june meeting earlier today. let me underscore that our release of this information is not meant to convey any change

in the stance of policy. views onow, the fomc policy are conveyed in the policy statement which i will now discuss before coming back to our normalization plans. as indicated in our policy statement, the fomc decided to make another reduction in the pace of the asset purchases. the economy is continuing to make progress toward the fomc objective of maximum sustainable employment. in the labor market, conditions have improved further in recent months. although the pace of job growth

has slowed some recently, job gains have averaged more than 200 thousand per month over the past three months. the unemployment rate was 6.1% in august, lower than the data available at the time of the fo -- fomc meeting. 6roader utilization like the u measure have shown similar improvement in the labor market anticipation rate has flattened out. the developments continue to trend with gradual progress toward our employment objective. the labor market has yet to fully recover. there is still too many people who want jobs but cannot find them, too many who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work, and too many who are not searching for a job but would be if the labor market were stronger.

as noted in the fomc statement, a range of labor market indicators suggests there remains significant under utilization of labor resources. committee continues to see sufficient underlying strength in the economy to support ongoing improvement in the labor market. anhough real gdp rose at annual rate of only about one percent in the first half of the year, that modest gain reflected , in part, transitory factors including a dip in exports -- in net exports. profits to domestic final demand, spending by domestic businesses, grew about twice as fast as gdp. indicators of spending and production for the third quarter suggests economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. the committee continues to

expect a moderate pace of growth going forward. belowion has been running the committee's two percent objective. with longer-term inflation expectations appearing to be well anchored, the economic recovery continuing, the committee expects inflation to move gradually back toward its objective. has firmed some sense early in the year and the committee believes the likelihood of inflation running persistently below two percent has diminished. as is always the case, the committee will continue to assess incoming data carefully to ensure that policy is theistent with the aim of longer run goals of maximum employment and inflation of two percent. this outlook is reflected in the individual economic ejections submitted in conjunction with

this meeting by the fomc participants which, for the first time, go through 2017. as always, each participants projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. the central tendency of the unemployment rate projections is slightly lower than in the june projections and now stands at 5.9-6 .0% at the end of this year. generallyparticipants see the unemployment rate declining to its longer level over the course of 2016. it will edge of bit below that rate in 2017. the central tendency of the projections were real gdp growth 2.0%-2.3% for 2014 which is

down slightly from june projections. over the next three years, the projections for real gdp growth runs somewhat above the estimates of longer than normal growth. fomc participants continued to see inflation moving gradually back toward two percent. the central tendency of the inflation projection is 1.5 %-1.7% in 2014, rising to 1.9%-two percent in 2017. as i noted earlier, the committee decided today to make another reduction in the asset purchases. two years ago, when the fomc began this purchase program, the employment rate stood at 8.1%. progress in lowering it was expected to be much slower than desired without additional policy accommodations.

the intent of the program was to achieve a substantial improvements in the outlook for the labor market and to ensure that inflation was moving back towards the committee's longer run goal of two percent. in light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions since the inception of the program, and with the likelihood of inflation running persistently below two percent having diminished somewhat, we have reduced our pace of asset her kisses again at this meeting. starting next month, we will be purchasing $15 billion of securities per month, down $10 billion per month from the current rate. if incoming information broadly supports the committee's expectations of ongoing improvement in the labor market, and inflation moving back over time toward its two percent longer run objective, the

committee will end this program at our next meeting. the committee will continue its policy of reinvesting proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principal cayments from holdings of hn debts. the sizable holdings of longer-term securities should help maintain accommodative financial conditions and promote further progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and inflation of two percent. interest rates, the committee reaffirmed its forward willnce because it likely be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the committees two percent longer run goal and longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored.

this judgment is based on the committee's assessment of realized and expected progress toward its objectives of maximum employment and two percent inflation. it's an assessment based on a wide range of information including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures, and inflation expectations and ratings on financial developments. further, once would begin to remove policy accommodations, it is the committee's current assessment that even after employment and inflation are near mandate consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the committee views as normal in the longer run. this guidance is consistent with the past for aprthe past for ape as reported in the participants

projections. any moment,plain the fomc now anticipates that it will continue to establish a target range rather than a single point for the federal funds rate when normalization begins. the dots in the chart i have distributed now show for each participants the midpoint of this target range. notably, although the central tendency of the unemployment 2016 is slightly below its estimated longer run value, and the central tendency for inflation is close to our two percent objective, the median projection for the federal funds rate at the end of remains nearly one percentage point below the .70er run value of three

five percent projected by most participants. although participants provide a number of explanations for the federal funds rate running below is longer run normal level at that time, many cite the residual effects of the although crisis which slowly diminishing, are likely to continue to restrain spending and constrained credit availability, and depress expectations or future growth and output in incomes. as these factors dissipate further, most participants expect the federal funds rate to move close to its longer run normal level by the end of 2017. however, thatte, the committee's expectations for the path of the federal funds rate are contingent on the economic outlook. if the economy proves to be stronger than anticipated by the

committee, resulting in a more rapid convergence of employment and inflation to the fomc's objectives, increases in the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner and to be more rapid than currently envisaged. conversely, if economic performance disappoints, increases in the federal funds rate are likely to take laced later and be more gradual. let me now turn to our statement on policy normalization principles and plans. statement is intended to provide information to the public about the eventual normalization process. change int signal a the current or future stance of monetary policy. case, the fomce will determine the timing and pace of policy normalization so

as to promote its statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability. since the crisis, the federal reserve has been providing extraordinary accommodations using nontraditional tools of monitoring policy. intention has always been to return to a more traditional approach. theughout this period, committee has been preparing for the normalization process. in june, 2011, the committee set out some broad principles and more specific tactics for how it envisions the normalization process to take place3. noted the013, we conditions had changed significantly in ways not anticipated in june of 2011. including the size and composition of the fed's balance sheet and some revision of the

earlier plans was appropriate. the document released today --lects our updated lands plans which readers of her motives will know it's the under discussion for the last few meetings. the new approach obtains many principles from the original. it also has some new elements. as was the case before the tosis, the committee intends adjust the stance of monetary policy during normalization primarily through actions that influence the level of the federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates, not through active management of the balance sheet. the federal funds rate will serve as the key rate to communicate the stance of policy. to begin normalization, the committee will raise its target range for the federal funds rate. the committee expects that the

effective federal funds rate may vary within the target range and could even move outside of that range on occasion but such movements should have no material effect on financial conditions or the broader economy. the primary tool for moving the federal funds rate into the target range will be the rate of interest paid on excess reserves or ioer. the committee expects the federal funds rate will create whilethe ioer rate reserves are so plentiful as is the case at present. the committee also intends to use an overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility which, by transacting with the broad state of counterparties, will help ensure that the federal funds rate remains in the target range. i would like to emphasize that the overnight rrp facility will

only be used to the extent necessary and will be phased out when no longer needed to help control the federal funds rate. in addition, the committee will adjust the particular settings of these tools as needed and could deploy other supplementary tools as well to ensure that we achieve our desired dance of policy. -- stance of policy. turning to the fed balance sheet -- the committee intends to reduce security holdings in a gradual and predictable manner primarily by ceasing to reinvest the payments of principal on securities held on the system open market account. regarding the timing for ceasing reinvestments, the committee now expects this to occur after the initial increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. the committee currently does not

anticipated selling agency mortgage-backed securities as part of the normalization process. although limited sales might be warranted in the longer run to reduce or eliminate residual holdings. the timing and pace of such sales would be communicated to the applicant advance. it is the committee's intention that the federal reserve will, in the longer run, hold the more securities than necessary to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively and that these securities will primarily consist of treasury securities. , today'sed earlier release of the committee's updated normalization plans is in no way intended to signal a change in the stance of monetary policy. rather, it is meant simply to provide information about how

the committee envisions the normalization process in light of the changes in economic and financial circumstances that have occurred since we put forth our original plans more than three years ago. that said, conditions could change further and we will learn about our tools during normalization. the committee has agreed it is prepared to make additional adjustments to its normalization plans if warranted by economic and financial developments. thank you. let me stop there and i will be happy to take your questions. thank you. there was some debate into this meeting about the phrase "considerable time." fomc isebated at the

whether it should be included ?as was indicated in our policy ? what does it mean time wise? statement of forward guidance in how to square the idea of the date when you and others on the fomc have continuously said you are data dependent to the point where if the data were to turn, would it not necessarily the a considerable time to raise rates? >> of course, the committee discussed his forward guidance today and it discusses what the appropriate forward guidance is at every meeting. this is part of our assessment of economic conditions and the appropriate stance of monetary policy. in terms of what the term "considerable time" means, the committee decided that based on

the assessment of economic conditions, that characterization remains appropriate and it was comfortable with this. example, at the projections of individual ,articipants that are revealed it's the view of each participant and i would emphasize it's not a committee collective view. there is relatively little change in the assessment of the outlook i participants between this meeting and the assessment in june. changed, a is little slight decline in the anticipated path of the unemployment rate and a very slight uptick in the inflation projection but really quite minimal. the outlook has not changed that much from june and the committee

felt comfortable with this characterization. you asked if this was calendar-based guidance. i want to emphasize that there is no mechanical interpretation of what the term "considerable time" means. have i have said repeatedly, this -- the decisions the committee makes about the appropriate time to begin to raise its target for the federal funds rate will be data dependent. now, opening comments just i again emphasized something i have said trivia slake which is -- i have said previously which is if the pace of progress and achieving our goals were to it'sen or to accelerate, likely that the committee would begin raising its target for the federal funds rate sooner than is now anticipated and might

then raise the federal funds rate at a faster pace and the opposite is also true. if the projection were to change. there is no fixed, mechanical interpretation of a time period. i think it would not be accurate to describe the committee's guidance about the timing of the federal funds rate and when it will move above zero as being calendar based. the committee started with a broad general statement of what determines how long it will keep the federal funds rate target at zero. it is said that it will be looking at the actual and projected pace at which the gaps between employment and inflation and our goals to those variables are closing. does ath the committee

each meeting is, after seeing the assessment will take into it cap many different indicators and take into account inflation pressures am a and other things, it goes on to provide at that meeting its assessment of the implications of its view of the data at that time. that assessment really has not changed over the last several meetings. the committee, based on its assessment of each meeting, has felt comfortable saying that based on its assessment of those factors, it considers it will be likely appropriate to maintain the current target range for considerable time after the asset purchase program ends especially if inflation remains below the two percent objective. --ould not describe that "considerable time" sounds like

a calendar concept but it is highly conditional and liked to the committee's assessment of the economy. kept the guidance the same and having referred to significant underutilization of labor and having pushed gdp ejections down little bit, yet the rate path gets deeper and seems to be consolidating higher. if it's data dependent, what accounts for the faster projections on rate increases if the data are not moving in that direction? >> the growth projections for 2014 are down a little bit but the unemployment path is also marginally lower. while the projected path of the labor market unemployment and other measures of the labor market is partly dependent on

the growth outlook, it is not totally dependent on the growth outlook. the committee assesses the labor andet continuing to improve you see a small reduction in the path of the unemployment this year and over the rest of the projection period. asked me why it is the projected funds rate path moved up -- each participant knows the reason they wrote down what they did. as i guess, i would say there is relatively little upward and i wouldthe path view it as broadly in line with what one would expect with a very small downward reduction in the path for unemployment and a very slight upward change in the

projection for inflation. most participants and deciding at,he path, i think, looked as our guidance says, how large is the gap between performance of the labor market and that associated with their maximum employment objective, how large is the gap between inflation and their two percent objective, how fast will those gaps change, and you see in the projections very modest reductions in the size of those gaps. modest, very small change of a slightly faster pace in which those gaps would change -- i would describe the change in the projections for the economy and the path of rates as quite modest. the fact that they move does illustrate the data dependent

principle that is so important for market participants to keep in mind. what we do will depend on how the data unfolds. there is uncertainty about that. as expectations and the actual performance of the economy change, you should expect to see movements in the dots. it's also notable that the further you go out in the projection period, the wider the set of dots you see, a big range in 2017 and that reflects in part different forecasts by different members of the committee about how rapid progress will be. what you don't see in the so-called dots is the uncertainty that each individual and each participant sees around their own projections. things will depend on how the economy evolves and that will

change over time and there is a good deal of uncertainty associated with that. the economy has been growing now for five years and some economists leave the expansion will last another five years. why, in your view, is economic moreh not creating inflation and wages and pce? is this about remaining slack in the labor market or are there other forces at play? >> to my mind, the very slow pace of wage increases does reflect slack in the labor market. recession as deep is perhaps to be expected in the aftermath of a very significant

financial crisis. we faced headwinds in the economy recovery. the recovery has been slow. positive and it has lasted for five years but to other relative recoveries that have not been associated with financial crises. while unemployment has come way down from the slightly over 10% level it reached, at 6.1%, it above thegnificantly levels that most fomc participants would regard as consistent with normal in the five .2%-5.5%. there is significant underutilization of labor resources. we continue to discuss whether

or not the unemployment rate itself is an adequate measure of how much underutilization of labor resources there really is. in jacksonnto detail hole and will not repeat all of that, there are other ways in which we see underutilization, high levels that have come down only marginally of part-time employment for economic or involuntary our time employment. perhaps some remaining shortfall aslabor force participation a result of cyclical factors. and thethere still is statement says that significant underutilization of labor modest paced a very of wage increases that has picked up very little. i think it's a reflection of

that. >> i want to come back to the interest rate projections. would behe public enlightened by knowing a bit more about where you stand in relation to these projections. with that in mind and in the name of transparency, i wonder if you could describe to us whether you are at the low end those projections within the central tendency or at the high-end? i also want to ask you about a san francisco fed paper that came out recently which suggested that market expectations have been running below the fed's own projections. you see to ask you if that as well and whether it is troubling that market expectations might not be aligned with what the fed put out today. >> with respect to identifying myself, the committee has had

discussions during the years we have been providing these forecasts of the participants to the public as to whether or not it's desirable from the standpoint of committee functioning to identify who is who in these pictures. bus far, while occasionally an indicate in al speech with their personal views are, we have not yet decided that it would be a desirable ofng from the point of view our decision-making process to identify individuals. we have a subcommittee on communications that is now chaired by vice chair fisher and they will be considering the fcp and whether some changes are appropriate but until and unless

there is some change in the committee's stance on this, i don't want to identify myself. you asked second about the san that pointed paper to a notable divergence between market news and the views of the committee. i would say that there have been any number of different analyses of this topic. there are many different survey measures and interpretations of what the market tanks. -- thinks. i frankly don't think it's completely clear that there is a gap. there are different views on whether or not such a gap exists. to the extent that there is a gap, one reason for it could be that markets and participants have different views on the evolution of economic conditions.

for example, i think i would note that when the committee participants write down their forecasts for the federal funds showing the funds rate path that they consider most likely. are ofconomic forecasts the conditions that they think are the most likely ones. you don't see the full range of possibilities there. the path for the funds rate is the path of each individual thinks is most likely. market participants understanding that there are a range of possible outcomes with upside and downside possibilities are doing something slightly different, i think, when they are determining market prices. they are taking into account the

possibility that there can be different economic outcomes including even if they are not very likely ones in which outcomes will be characterized by low inflation or low growth and the appropriate path of rates are low. anderences in probabilities different outcomes can explain part of that. we want to learn. market participants may have different views on the economy than the committee does and that is something we want to try to learn market views in part from information of this type. it is can say is that important for market whatcipants to understand our likely response for her reaction function is to the data and our job is to try to communicate as clearly as we can

the way in which our policy stance will depend on the data and i promise to try to do that. >> my question is about the new exit principles you say you don't plan to and reinvestments until after the first rate hike. can you give us a sense of what the conditions are that you will be looking for when you eventually begin to end of the reinvestments? it sounds like tapering the reinvestments are on the table. whetheryour decision on to end them all together or to taper them and do you have a general timeline for how long you think it will take to shrink the balance sheet once you actually start? >> all good questions -- wants tohe committee use the path of short-term

interest rates as our key tool of policy. of course, market participants will be very focused as we are on what is the appropriate timing and pace of interest-rate increases when that time comes. i think the committee would like to feel that it has successfully begun the normalization process and that we are successfully communicating with markets about how that process will be playing out over time. when the committee is comfortable that that process is us that bush and is working well and we are comfortable with the outlook that they will begin the process of ceasing of possible tapering but eventually ceasing reinvestments. it will depend on economic and financial

conditions but we want to make sure normalization is successfully underway. to shrink airy balance sheet by ceasing reinvestments, it would probably -- to get back to levels of reserve balances that we had before the crisis, i'm not sure we will go that low but we have said we will try to shrink air balance sheet to the lowest levels consistent with effective implementation of policy. it could take to the end of the decade to achieve those levels. >> you said there is perhaps some remaining shortfall of labor force participant tatian -- of participation. some members of the steps site

participation is unlikely to recover. view that labor force participation is out of the equation? in the statement of exit principle, you said the committee will act as soon as economic conditions warrant. there is an idea in circulation that you might stay lower for longer as a means of compensating for some of the damage done during the recession. is this an indication that debate has been settled and that ideas off the table? >> what was the first question? participationorce moved from the equation? >> the recent paper by economists clearly indicates -- and i said this at jackson hole -- there are structural reasons particularly demographics but not only demographics why labor force participation should be expected to decline over time.

i agree with that and i believe most of my colleagues would endorse that as well. they did indicate in the paper that they see some remaining cyclical shortfall by one technique they used. they placed the estimate at 0.25% by another technique, it could be as large as one percent. my own personal view is that there is some cyclical shortfall and probably within that range but nevertheless, it's a meaningful cyclical shortfall. i'm not completely -- giving my own personal view, not givenittee assessment -- the underlying downtrend in labor force participation, we might interpret the flattening

out of labor force participation over the last year as showing that the cyclical component has diminished somewhat. i think there is something that remains but eventually, i would certainly agree with the authors that we should expect to see labor force participation over time declining. the second piece was -- we stayed low for a very long time. we have been at zero for a very long time. and below the levels that some common policy rules would now be suggested given the level of unemployment and inflation. the recovery has been very slow. we have also been doing unconventional policies like buying assets.

in a general sense, i think we have been lower for longer than if you complete that sentence that many standard policy rules would suggest. in a sense, it is a policy that we have had. appropriatede it's to begin to normalize policy and of our targetevel for short-term interest rates, it would still take some time for rates to get back to levels. you can see in our projection that by the end of 2017, the artistic pence -- the participants are an average projecting rates will reach the levels they considered normal in the longer run. similarly, we could make a similar statement with respect to where the funds rate would

stand relative to the recommendations of rules. tot would take some time return to those kind of levels. >> there were two dissents from today's decision. i would like to get your thinking on how you treat dissents. in chairman bernanke's eight years, there was the largest number of dissents which is three. do you see to dissents as a yellow warning or flashing light that policy may need to be moderated down the road? how should market participants read the dissents? naturalnk it is are a that the committee should have a range of opinions about a decision as crucial as what is the right time to begin to normalize policy.

we do have a range of views in the committee. dissents toider two be abnormally large number. and fisherlosser have been quite clear in all their speeches recently stating they think the time has come to begin normalizing policy. i think they perhaps have some concerns that if we don't begin to do so soon that inflation will pick up and be above levels they would consider desirable or that they have some financial stability concerns. the committee adopted today's statement by an overwhelming majority and i don't consider it a level of dissent to be surprising or abnormal.

>> there has been another downgrade in your near-term forecast and the unemployment rate. does it appear the potential is much lower than you thought and therefore slack is closing more quickly than you thought? how concerned are you about events in europe and the recent decline in place and expectations there? >> there has been a little bit of downgrading. even in the longer run this time, normal growth rates that committee participants have written down. you are certainly right in saying that over a number of years now there has been a wheren of forecast errors either we have been on track with respect to unemployment or unemployment has come down, in

some cases faster than anticipated and yet growth has pretty persistently been surprising the committee to the downside. that is a statement about productivity growth which has been pretty disappointing. revisionsd downward and the level of potential output and to some extent, at least for a time, in the projected pace of growth. that tension has been there. there are a range of views about long-run growth. a lot of people are writing about this topic. the committee's longer run estimates are neither at the most pessimistic nor the most optimistic and. --end. about europe --

certainly, we have discussed the outlook for europe. inflationow level of that they have seen recently and the decline they saw in inflationary expectations and the slow pace of growth -- it is one of a number of risks of the global economy. that they willpe be successful in seeing the pace of growth and inflation pickup and i think that will be good for the global economy and the united states. i want to come back to the forward guidance. a large part of the committee has recently criticized the guidance as being [inaudible] based.

you say that's not correct. how should people understand it? if it doesn't have a defined meaning, what purpose does it serve and do you expect to have that change in the future? >> we are constantly discussing forward guidance and thinking about whether it's appropriate and how to revise it. we did do a major overhaul of our forward guidance in march. participants who have spoken out on this topic recently want to make sure that we have the flexibility that the committee has the flexibility to respond to unfolding developments. ity want to make sure that rugrats really does turn out to to make surent that if progress really turns out to be faster than we expect that the committee will be in soonerition to start

tightening monetary policy. they do not want to be locked into something that the markets see as calendar-based and firm commitment. datawant to emphasize dependence of our policy and make sure that we have appropriate flexibility. but i agree with that. as i said earlier, i think we do not have any mechanical interpretation that applies to this. impressione gives an about what we think will be appropriate but there is no mechanical interpretation and i have separate. leone want to say again that if and we arerise us moving more quickly toward our objectives and the committee sees the need to move sooner or later depending on what the data

is, that i feel we have the flexibility to move and it is important for markets to understand that there is uncertainty and the statement is not some sort of firm promise about a particular amount of time. getting back to the one aspect of the forward guidance is the statement which you reiterated about the funds rate probably needing to stay below normal for some time after achieving mandate consistent levels on unemployment and inflation. the assessments of appropriate fund rate levels show the funds rate getting up to that 3.75% normal level at the end of 2017. if you look at the sep

projections of unemployment and inflation, they seem to get back to those mandate consistent levels by the end of 2016 if not much sooner. what is the justification for waiting that much longer to get back to normal particularly when you have such a large balance sheet that you intend to reduce only gradually? is there a danger of getting behind the curve? secondly, can i just ask -- can you envision a time when the reduced reserve rushers -- you may have to reduce yourselves to asset sales that you do not anticipate now? of somee first question time before rates return to normal levels, as i mentioned, you can see in the sep that by the end of 2017, many

participants are anticipating that rates will return to what they think are normal longer run levels but the economy in their view will have probably gotten back to normal levels of unemployment and near-normal levels of inflation sometime in 2016. morelooks like a year or and which rates would be below normal for longer run levels. participants why they hold the views they do about appropriate policy. there are a number of different explanations that participants give. is that view on this there have been a variety of headwinds resulting from the crisis that have slowed growth, led to a sluggish recovery from

the crisis, and that these headwinds will dissipate only slowly and that they are dissipating. an example would be the fact is reallyage credit available to those with pristine credit. credit conditions there are abnormally tight. thater thing we see is household expectations about their likely income paths remain quite depressed relative to precrisis levels. that is something that may be holding back consumer spending. the view would be that those times will dissipate over but only very gradually. in addition, we have had slow productivity growth and the slow pace of potential output likely depresses the pace of investment spending.

those are some of the things that participants mention as white it will take some time to get back. it's not that the fed is behind returnve in failing to the funds rate to normal levels when the economy is recovered. it is rather that in order to achieve such a recovery in 2016 or by the end, it is necessary and appropriate to have a somewhat more accommodative policy than would be normal in the absence of those headwinds. i want to follow-up on the question about europe because tomorrow, scotland will vote on independence from great britain and there is some concern that if it does vote to break from great britain that this could

cause some turmoil in global financial markets on the global economy. are you concerned about that? do you see any impact of scotland does vote for independence? the it have any effect on world economy and is the fed doing anything in preparation for that policy? >> scottish voters are about to go to the polls tomorrow and they have had a good debate about this topic. in light of that, i don't want to weigh in on this today. my question is about your particular views about whether a gradual tightening is better than i more aggressive and less predictable one. there wasdisguised -- discussion about the fed predictability in the 2004 issuepweriod that created the

issues of complacently that led to the housing bubble. would you be more inclined to be gradual in your approach and more transparent and out loving future moves or whether you think keeping the market guessing would be better? >> this is something the committee is going to have to discuss one the time comes to normalize policy. looking back on the run-up to the financial crisis, i don't think, by any means, measured pace and the very predictable pace of 25 basis points per meeting explains why we had a financial crisis. it may have diminished volatility and then the small contributing factor. the committee will have to think about how to do this. i think many people in the aftermath of that episode think

somewhat less of a mechanical pays would perhaps be better but this is a matter that we will in due time have to discuss. >> thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> defense secretary chuck hagel per testifies about the strategy for combating the terrorist group, isis as he appears before the house armed services committee one day after the house voted to give the president authority to arm and train syrian rebels. live coverage starts at 11:15 a.m. eastern on c-span three. next, "washington journal" is live with your phone calls.

at 10 a.m. eastern, a joint session of prison we will hear from the ukrainian president. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend, we went to st. paul, minnesota. >> st. paul in the 1930's, i would not call it las vegas but it was a very lively city. the gangsters brought their gun molls. during prohibition, you had the biggest jazz artists of the decade here in st. paul. it was a very lively place partially big cause the gangsters were welcomed here. ,irtually every major gangster kidnapper, and bank robber in america lived and worked within a three block radius of where we are standing today. john dillinger, they be faced

nelson, alvin, creepy, carpets were here and people don't know that. there are no statues of these gangsters but this was the epicenter of 1930's crime in the era of john dillinger. the federal bureau of investigation under j edgar hoover had this ruling as their headquarters. this is also the building where all of those bootleggers and bank robbers were tried and sent to alcatraz, leavenworth prison, and other prisons across america. it's where it began and where it ended. lookingtanding here at over the junction of the minnesota and mississippi rivers. st. paul is located up the mississippi river from porch and the fort was here before the city but it's intimately connected in the creation of st. paul. in the 1830's, there were groups of settlers living on the military's property.

finally, the army had had enough of competing with them for resources and they felt they should be removed from the military property. the settlers moved across the river to the other side they formed what became the nucleus of the city of st. paul. when you think about the story and history of this region, if you think the on the walls of , which is what we try to do to get people to think more about what it means when all of these cultures came together? what perspectives did they have on these historic events? >> watch all of our events from st. paul saturday noon eastern on book tv on sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span three. . representatives, marcy kaptur discusses the house vote on training syrian rebels to fight isis and the ukrainian residents up -- address to congress. then congressman dana rohrabacher talks about u.s.

foreign house including threats himd by isis and that 9:00 our series on higher education continues with the indiana university president. ♪ ♪