taking a break for the next hour to so. they're expected to go to about midnight tonight. marking up the 2016 budget proposal. the senate budget committee's doing the same thing, not exactly sure if they're still in session. they came in at 2:30 eastern so they should be. again, as they prepare their 2016 budget measure. "the hill" in writing about the proposal that was released tuesday say that it would balance the budget, the republican plan would balance the budget in nine years. and cut $5.5 trillion in projected spending over the next decade. "the hill" writes the budget would keep spending ceilings under a 2011 budget deal in place but would provide as much as $90 billion in additional war funding. much more than the $51 billion proposed by president obama. the budget committee chair, tom price's, blueprint reveals that obamacare -- or repeals obamacare, rather, and has a premium support for medicare similar to those proposed in previous house budgets by the former chair paul ryan who

now heads ways and means. again, the committee here taking a break. we expect until 5:00 eastern. we'll continue our live coverage then. and also online at cspan.org. we will be back to the budget committee when they gavel back in which should be at about 5:00 eastern. our coverage continues online at 2:00. a reminder of the senate budget committee that's under way. that's also on cspan.org. but also happening today, the federal reserve's federal open market committee wrapped up today. and the chairman of the fed, janet yellen, as she does after these meetings, held a press conference with reporters.

chairman yellen: good afternoon. as you know, the federal open market committee this afternoon reaffirmed the current zero to 25% target range for the federal funds -- .25% target range for the federal funds rate. the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at our next meeting in april. with continued improvement in economic conditions, however, we do not want to rule out the possibilities that an increase in the target range could be warranted at subsequent meetings. let me emphasize, however, that the timing of the initial increase in the target range

will depend on the committee's assessment of incoming information. today's modification of our guidance should not be interpreted to mean that we have decided on the timing of that increase. in other words just because we removed the word patient from the statement doesn't mean we're going to be impatient. moreover, even after the initial increase in the target funds rate, our policy is likely to remain highly accommodative to support continued progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. i'll come back to today's policy decisions in a few moments, but first i'd like to review economic developments in the outlook which formed the basis for our policy decisions. we've seen continued progress

toward our objectives or objective of maximum employment. the pace of employment growth has remained strong, with job gains averaging nearly 290,000 per month over the past three months. the unemployment rate was 5.5% in february, that's .3 lower than the latest reading available at the time of our december meeting. broader measures of job market conditions such as those counting individuals who want and are available to work but have not actively searched recently, and people who are working part time but would rather work full time have shown similar improvement. as we noted in our statement, slack in the labor market continues to diminish. meanwhile, the labor force

participation rate, percentage of working-age americans either working on seeking work, is lower than most estimates of its trend. and wage growth remains sluggish, suggesting that some cyclical weakness persists. so considerable progress clearly has been achieved but room for further improvement in the labor market continues. we continue to expect sufficient underlying strength in economic growth to support ongoing improvement in the labor market. after averaging about 2.5% over 2014 growth of real gross domestic product appears to have slowed in the first quarter of this year. in part reflecting a moderation in household spending. in addition, the recovering -- the recovery in the housing sector remains subdued and export growth looks to have

weakened. looking ahead however, the committee continues to expect a moderate pace of g.d.p. growth with robust job gains and lower energy prices supporting household spending. inflation has declined further below our longer-run objective. largely reflecting the lower energy prices i just mentioned. declining import prices have also restrained inflation and in light of the recent appreciation of the dollar, we'll likely continue to do so in the months ahead. my colleagues and i continue to expect that as the affects of these trancetory factors dissipate and as the labor market improves further, inflation will move grea gradually back toward our 2% objective over the medium term. in making this forecast, we are

attentive to the low levels of market-based measures of inflation compensation. in contrast, survey-based measures have long determined inflation had expectations have remained stable. the committee will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully. this assessment of the outlook is reflected in the individual economic projections submitted to this meeting by the fomc participants. as always, each participant's projections are continued on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. the unemployment rate projections over the next few years and in the longer run are generally a bit lower than the december projections. at the end of this year, the central tendency for the unemployment rate stands at 5% to 5.2%. in line with participants'

estimates of the longer-run normal unemployment rate. committee participants generally see the unemployment rate declining a little further over the course of 2016 and 2017. for economic growth participants generally reduce their projections since december, with many citing a weaker outlook fournette exports. -- for net exports. nonetheless, the central tendency of the growth projections for this year and next at 2.3% to 2.7% remains somewhat above estimates of the longer-run normal growth rate. finally, fomc participants project inflation to be quite low this year. largely reflecting lower energy and import prices. the central tendency of the inflation projections for this year is now below 1%. down noticeably since december.

as the transitory factors holding down inflation abate, the central tendency rebounds to 1.7% to 1.9% next year and rises to 1.9% to 2% in 2017. returning to monetary policy, as i noted at the outset, the committee reaffirms its view that the current zero to .25% target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. but with economic conditions improving, and with further improvement expected in the months ahead we have again modified our forward guidance. in december and january, the committee judged that it could be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. that meant that we considered it unlikely that economic conditions would warrant an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of

fomc meetings. well, -- while it's still the case that we consider it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase at the -- in the target range at the april meeting, such an increase could be warranted at any later meeting, depending on how the economy evolves. let me emphasize again that today's modification of the forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. in particular, this change does not mean that an increase will necessarily occur in june. although we can't rule that out. we noted in our statement, the decision to raise the target range will depend on our assessment of realized and

expected progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. we continue to base that assessment on a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures, and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. we anticipate that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when the committee has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. once we begin to remove policy accommodation, we continue to expect that, in the words of our statement, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may for some time warrant keeping the

target federal funds rate below levels the committee views is normal in the longer run. is consistent with the path it's of appropriate policy reported by fomc participants. compared with the projections made in december, most participants lowered their path for the federal funds rate consistent with the downward revisions made to the projections for d.b. -- g.d.p. growth and inflation as well as somewhat lower estimates of the longer run normal unemployment rate. the medium projection for the federal funds rate rises a bit above 3% in late 2017. the median projected rate in 2017 remains below the 3.75% or

so projected by most participants as the rates longer run value. even though the central tendency of the unemployment rate by that time is slightly below that of its estimated longer-run value and the central tendency for inflation is close to our 2% objective. participants provide a number of explanations for the federal funds rate running below its normal longer-run level at that time. these include, in particular the residual effects of the financial crisis, which are likely to continue to constrain spending and credit availability for some time. i'd like to emphasize that these forecasts of the appropriate path of the federal funds rate are conditional on participants' individual projections for economic output inflation and other factors. but our actual policy actions over time will be

data-dependent. accordingly, if the expansion proves to be more vigorous than currently anticipated, and inflation moves higher than expected then the appropriate path would likely follow a steeper and higher trajectory. conversely, if conditions were to prove weaker, then the appropriate trajectory would be lower and less steep. finally, the committee will continue its policy of reinvesting proceeds for maturing treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. the committee's sizable holdings of longer term securities should help maintain accommodative financial conditions and promote further progress toward our objectives. thank you. now i'd be happy to take your questions.

questioner: there's a pretty consistent reference to expectations above trend growth over the last few months. now we're seeing growth downgraded in the context of very explicit references, the international and external conditions weak export growth, oil dragging out inflation, and your comments on the dollar. so my question is, doesn't this indicate that the fed's facing a tougher time, you know, kind of going it alone, decoupling from the rest of the world, than perhaps you expected last fall when this first started to be an issue? chairman yellen: well, it looks like from incoming data pertaining to the first quarter, that real g.d.p. growth has declined somewhat below where it was for the last several quarters of last year. and that's really why the committee indicated the growth is moderated somewhat. there has been a slight downgrading of estimates of

growth for this year. you mentioned the dollar. we noted that export growth is weakened, probably the strong dollar is one reason for that. the strength of the dollar also reflects the strength of the u.s. economy. the strength of the dollar is also one factor that, as i noted, is holding down import prices and at least on a transitory basis at this point pushing inflation down. so we are taking account of international developments, including prospects for growth and our trade partners in making the forecast we have here. nevertheless it is important to recognize that this is not a weak forecast. taking everything into account we continue to project

above-trend growth. we continue to project improvement in the labor market. by the end of 2015. the central tendency of the participants is they're looking for an unemployment rate that will be down to 5% to 5.2% which is consistent with their estimates. so we do see considerable underlying strength in the u.s. economy. and in spite of what looks like a weaker first quarter, we are projecting good per ferre -- performance for the economy. questioner: associated press. the policy statement today talks about one of the prerequisites you need to start raising rates is to be reasonably confident that inflation will be met at 2%.

but that's coming out at a time when you've lowered your forecast on inflation. which i would think would make you less confident about it. what is it going to take to make you confident about inflation? chair yellen: i don't have a mechanical answer for you. there is no single thing where i'd say, we must see such an such in order to achieve that -- such and such in order to achieve that level of confidence. we will be looking at a wide array of data. now, we've said that we also want to see continued improvement in the labor market. a stronger labor market with less labor market slack is one factor that would tend to certainly, for me, increase my confidence that as slack diminishes, inflation will move up over time. other things i will be looking at of course the inflation

data, as we said, we expect inflation to remain quite low. because of the depressing influence of energy price declines and the dollar. but we will be looking at the inflation data carefully to see if we can interpret, for example, low levels of inflation if we see that, which we expect. as reflectsing those influences. we will be looking at age growth. we have not seen wage growth pick up. we may not see wage growth pick up. i wouldn't say either that that is a precondition to raising rates. it we -- if we did see wage growth pick up, that would be at least a symptom that inflation would likely move up over time. we'll be watching inflation expectations, survey measures have been stable. i expect that to continue.

but we will be watching it carefully. and market-based measures of inflation compensation have fallen. if they were to move up over time, that would probably serve to increase my confidence. but there are a wide range of things that we will be looking at including further improvement in the labor market, so there's no simple answer. this is a judgment that the committee will have to make. questioner: john from the "wall street journal." chair yellen, the famous dot plot that we always talk about showed that officials' expectations for where interest rates are going end to in 2015 2016 and 2017 have come down fairly notably. i wonder if you could explain to us your analysis of why those estimates are coming down. and specifically is it a

reflection of what's changed and is it a reflection of the changes in the fed's economic forecast or a change in the way the fed is reacting to the economy that it sees its reaction function? chair yellen: it's always hard to know exactly why each participant has written down the forecast that they have. but certainly there are changes in the assessments of the economy and forecasts for the economy that would point in the direction of downward adjustment in the funds rate path. for one thing, you do see meaningful downward adjusts in the inflation forecast, certainly for this year. in addition, importantly, a number of participants have marked down their estimates of

the normal longer-run unemployment rate. so that range has moved down noticeably from previously it was 5.2% to 5.5% and it's now moved down to 5% to 5.2% and downward revisions to the longer-run normal unemployment rate in a way suggests that participants are seeing more slack in the economy now than they previously did. so i think both of those things would point to downward revision in the funds rate path. questioner: "the financial times." there are other central banks, notably japan, sweden also suggests that tightening early when you're at the zero lower bound, can be a risky process. early can dramatically outweigh

the risks of leaving things a little longer. i wonder if you could comment on that international experience and explain how that's influencing the debate if the fomc at the moment. chair yellen: when an economy is operating at the so-called zero lower bound it creates a situation where there are asimilar ethic risks. it is possible, if the economy proves stronger than is expected to respond to that by tightening policy. if there are adverse shocks to demand tend to push inflation and economic performance in an adverse direction. it's not possible to lower rates. of course that's a reason why for a number of years we engaged in active asset purchase programs. so there is a situation there

of risks and it does point in the direction of waiting longer to raise rates. but i would say that this is an influence that we, and a set of considerations, that we've long been aware of and have been taking into account. so that it's not something that just comes into play now, it is a reason that we have held rates at zero to .5% -- .25% for now roughly six years. so we are seeing an economy that's growing above trend. the labor market is improving. i think some of the head winds that have long been holding the economy back are beginning to recede which is a reason that the committee wants to be able to evaluate incoming data and consider when it may be appropriate to finally raise rates. but that is a consideration we

have long taken into account. questioner: cnbc. i don't hear any quantitative measures of what increasing confidence in inflation or heading back towards or further improvement in the job market, which is unusual for a fed that not too long ago was providing us metrics on unemployment, about when it would move with rates. is it now policy to keep the market guessing? is it thought that you'd have better policy and economic outcomes with less certainty about the path of interest rates? a related question, if you will, could you see raising rates while the committee still judges that the risks are balanced? chair yellen: so in terms of certainty, and providing metrics, we provided a metric or a threshold of 6.5% several

years ago and told market participants and the public that we wouldn't consider it appropriate to raise rates as long as the unemployment rate was higher than that level. as long as inflation was well contained. but our policy needs to be data-dependent. and we need to respond to incoming data and our assessment of incoming data in terms of where we think the economy is heading, and how close we are to our objectives. and the markets -- so, can we provide certainty? of course we can't provide certainty. because we're not certain what the data will look like and how the economy will evolve. and to achieve our objectives

we need to watch the data continually reformulate our best guesses, our forecasts of where the economy is going and respond appropriately. and we can't provide certainty and shouldn't provide certainty because economic developments that will unfold are uncertain. what market participants should be doing is look at incoming data just as we are and forming their expectations for where policy will be going and should be going, just exactly as we will be doing by attempting to understand economic developments as they unfold. that is what we're trying to say in this statement, if that's what we will be doing going forward. and we don't want to and don't think it's appropriate at this point to provide calendar-based

guidance. questioner: [inaudible] the chair: the risks to what? -- chair yellen: the risks to what? questioner: [inaudible] chair yellen: i guess we said the risks to the outlooks are balanced. i mean, certainly we could raise rates in a situation where the risks are balanced. we need to see, as we've said, we want to see further improvement in the labor market. and we want to feel reasonably confident that the economy is on a trajectory where we will achieve our 2% inflation objective. questioner: "new york times." there seems to be an awful lot riding on surveys of inflation had expectations. yet those surveys are an inprecise instrument. they don't seem particularly sensitive to the types of

changes in inflation we've seen in recent years. they don't seem to differentiate between 1.5% and 2%. the expectations remain stable even through those changes. could you talk about why the fomc has confidence those measures are accurate reflections of where inflation is likely to go? and whether the concerns that you've articulated about market-based measures at all correspondent with concerns you might have about survey-based measures? chair yellen: survey-based measures aren't perfect and often the mean or even the median of those measures does not line up very well with actual inflation. so they seem to be biased. nevertheless they do seem to be useful in predicting actual movements in inflation. because we think inflation expectations are a determinant of price setting, we need to be looking at the best da that we can, even if it's -- data that we can even if it's imperfect

in trying to gauge inflation expectations. so we do look at survey measures. now, the fact that survey measures are stable, even if they're stable at levels consistent with the inflation objectives that the central bank wants to achieve, that's not a guarantee that inflation will over time move to be consistent with those expectations. an example of is japan. i would give you. where for many years the households and businesses expected positive inflation, but there was a consistent undershoot. so this isn't a single -- a single metric that is perfect, but it's one of many things we look at. we also look at measures of inflation expectations based on market differentials between nominal and real yields.

they're also informative. but can move around for reasons pertaining to liquidity in the treasury market and in the tips market. and also because of changing perceptions of inflation risk. so they're not a pure read either. and we want to look at those things and not take away any simple morals. questioner: fox business. i wanted to check in again with you on whether or not you see or have any concerns about bubbles out there in the economy, particularly the financial markets, debt and equity markets. i want to refer to your most recent monetary report policy report to congress last month in which you said overall equity valuations by some conventional measures are somewhat higher than their historical levels, valuation metrics in some sectors continue to appear stretched relative to historical norms.

in the same report last year in july the report specifically mentioned biotech and social media stocks as being substantially stretched. do you still feel that way? can you comment on bubbles in particularly these sectors? chair yellen: i don't want to comment on those particular sectors. as we said in the report, overall measures of equity valuations are in the high side. but not outside of historical ranges. in some corporate debt markets we do see evidence of unusually low streds and that's what was referred to the in the report. more broadly we do try to assess potential threats to

financial stability and in addition to looking at asset valuations, we also look at measures of credit growth, of the extent of leverage being used in the economy and in the financial sector, and the extent of maturity transformation. and taking into account a broad range of metrics that bear on financial stability, our overall assessment at this point is that the threats are moderate. questioner: "politico." so, i want to switch gears a little bit and ask about some of the tension between the fed and congress lately. with some lawmakers calling for more transparency and accountability measures. i wanted to ask to what degree there might be room for the fed to consider some of these measures, like maybe a rules-based approach like the taylor rule or some of these measures that would change up who has a voting seat on the

fomc, to what degree does that make it more difficult to accomplish your mission? chair yellen: so i believe the federal reserve has already -- is already one of the most transparent central banks of any around the globe. we provide an immense amount of information, both financial about our blal sheet and our -- balance sheet and our monetary policy operations. we have financial statements, we publish our balance sheet every week. if you want to know exactly what's in the report portfolio, it's listed on the new york fed website. i have press conferences, we issue minutes. we have statements that we release right after meetings and transcripts within five years. so if you put all that together, we are a transparent

central bank. with respect to congressional changes that are under consideration, that would politicize monetary policy, by bringing congress in to make policy judgments about in realtime on our monetary policy decisions. congress itself decided in 1978 that that was a bad thing to do. that it would lead to poor economic performance and they carved out this one area of policy reviews, of monetary policy decision making, from g.a.o. audits. the g.a.o. looks at everything else that goes on within the fed. and i think had that that is a central bank best practice, the global experience shows that giving central banks

independence to make monetary policy decisions that they think are in the best interests of the country and consistent with their mandates leads to lower inflation and more stable macroeconomic outcomes. so i feel very strongly about that. but we are accountable to congress. of course we're ready to provide information that congress needs to evaluate the fed's decision making in monetary policy and elsewhere. with respect to monetary policy ruleses -- rules, they can be useful and i find them useful and long have as a kind of benchmark for thinking about what might be the appropriate stance of policy. but to chain a central bank to follow a simple mathematical rule that fails to take account

of many things that are very important in making monetary policy for example, i was earlier asked about being against the zero lower bound, which is an important special consideration. that would be a very foolish thing to do. i oppose it. with respect to proposals having to do with voting and the structure of the fed that you mentioned, a lot of ideas have been mentioned. i would say for my part i think the federal reserve works well. the system we have was put into place by congress decades ago. i don't think it's a system that's broken. of course congress can revisit the decisions its made about the structure of the fed. there were good reasons for making the decisions that were made about how to structure voting and other things.

but -- and i don't think the system is broken. i think it's working well. so i don't see a need for changes. but of course it's up to congress to review that. questioner: i was wondering whether you could quantify the effect that the stronger dollar has had on economic output so far this year, the extent to which it's sort of acted as its own rate increase and what sort of obligation you feel, if any, to make life easier for the e.c.b., bank of japan, and the many emerging market countries that are struggling with some of the issues we struggled with not that long ago? chair yellen: with respect to the impact of the dollar on the u.s. economy, i don't have a quantitative estimate to offer you. but i certainly expect net

exports to serve as a notable drag this year on the outlook. but remember you have to put that in context. there are a lot of things that affect the u.s. outlook and while that is serving as a drag on economic growth overall the committee continues to see sufficient strength, particularly in private spending. that we are expecting above trend growth even so. with respect to our neighbors, we look very carefully at what's happening in the global environment, we realize that our own policies affect performance in the rest of the world and that performance in other countries has an influence on us, so we spend a good deal of time discussing

global developments. it is important for us to keep our own house in order, to put in place the policies that's consistent with the objectives that congress has given us. i think a strong u.s. economy certainly is something that is good for other countries as well. we have pledged to communicate as clearly as we can about monetary policy and i am trying to do that and will continue to do so. questioner: marketplace. we talked about the risk of tightening too early. what about the risk of waiting too long especially since it can take a while for fed actions to work their way through the economy? chair yellen: i agree with that. many, many studies over decades and decades have showed that there are lags in the way

monetary policy affects the economy and therefore monetary policy does have to be forward-looking. that's why we spend so much time preparing forecasts and discussing them. and we want to put in place a policy that will be appropriate for where the economy is heading. that is a reason that many of my colleagues, most of my colleagues are anticipating that it will be appropriate to begin to tighten policy sometime this year. in spite of the fact that they are projecting that inflation will be low. they're looking forward and they see that by the end of 2016 or 2017, with the labor market recovering and assuming that inflation expectations remain stable and transitory

influences no longer affecting inflation, they see inflation heading back to our 2% objective. so just as we don't want to be premature in tightening policy and aborting a recovery that we have worked long and hard to proceed as far as it has we also don't want to be behind the curve in beginning to tighten, given those lags. questioner: i'd like to preff as i this by saying i do -- preface this by saying i do believe you stand for accountability. recently a bunch of us were in a room over there. there was a police guard outside and your staff had taken our cell phones and they controlled the internet in the room. all this to guard the security of the fomc statements. if one of us had leaked it, we would lose our jobs, surely there would be a prosecution. and my friends here in the press would certainly have a

banner day with that story. there was a leak in the fomc. we don't know what happened. i've asked. i can't get an answer. now congress is asking. both parties want to know. i'm not going to ask about the i.g.'s probe. i understand that's an active case now. suddenly. after two years of just sitting there. but i would like to ask what you found at the board. you weren't chairman then. you were vice chair, i believe. so what answers do you have and are you going to respond to congress? chair yellen: so, let me say that the committee and i personally take very seriously our responsibility to safeguard confidential information. we have a set of policies and procedures that are in place that we're to follow if we believe that there have been leaks of confidential

information. and this is something that doesn't occur very often. but if it does occur, we follow those procedures. it has been reported that our inspector general is engaged in a review at this time of this matter. and in light of that ongoing review, i'm not going to get into details, but let me just say that we welcome that review and are looking forward to its conclusions with respect to congress, congressional inquiries. we have a range to brief members of congress who have asked about this and will certainly cooperate in trying to provide them the information. thank they seek. -- the information that they seek.

questioner: thanks for taking my question. the banking sector has clearly improved since the crisis in terms of capital retention. but there's also seemingly a number of scandals involving manipulation and libor. do you think that the culture at the banks is where it ought to be? and if not, what is the fed going to do to improve it and when? chair yellen: well, it's certainly been very disappointing to see what have been some really brazen violations of the law. and we absolutely expect the banks that we supervise to comply with the law and to have in place controls that ensure compliance in organizations.

and while changing the culture of work in this is not something that we can achieve through supervision, we will make sure that the banks that we supervise have appropriate compliance regimes in place and to the extent that compensation schemes might be insenting such behavior, that inappropriately reward risk taking, that's something that was -- we will, you know look for in our supervision as well. questioner: [inaudible] -- you introduced a compensation rule in 2011. when do you think we might see some movement on that rule? chair yellen: the agencies are working jointly to bring out a rule on this. but we do have supervisory

policies in place concerning the structure of incentive pay and compensation and our supervision covers that topic now. we have seen i think meaningful changes already in the structure of compensation and banking organizations to diminish ways in which it might insent risk taking. questioner: dow jones news wires. i have two follow-ups. one with regard to craig's question. before the i.g.'s investigation, according to republican congressman hensarling's letter to your congress, he says that it is my understanding that although the federal reserve's general council was initially involved in this investigation, the inquiry was dropped at the request of several members of the fomc. that predates the i.g. i want to know if you can tell us who are these members of the

fomc who struck down this investigation, and doesn't not revealing these facts kind of go directly against the sort of transparency and accountability that you're trying to bring to the central bank? chair yellen: that is an allegation that i don't believe has any basis in fact. i'm not going to go into the details. but i don't know where that piece of information could possibly have come from. questioner: following up to his question. i think when you get asked about financial crimes and the public hears you talk about compliance, you get a sense that there's not enough enforcement involved in these actions and that it's merely a case of kind of trying to achieve settlements after the fact. is there a sense in the regulatory community that financial crimes need to be punished sort of more forcefully in order for them to be -- for there to be an actual deterrent against it, unethical

behavior? chair yellen: you're talking about within banking organizations? so, the focus of regulators, the banking regulators, is safety and soundness. what we want to see is changes made as rapidly as possible that will eliminate practices that are unsafe and unsound. only the justice department can bring criminal action. they have taken up cases where they think that that's appropriate. in some situations when we are able to identify individuals who are responsible for misdeeds, we can put in place prohibitions that bar them from participating in banking and we have done so and will continue

to do so. questioner: n.m.i. good afternoon. the fomc said last september that it will wait until after the first rate hike to stop or to discontinue reinvesting proceeds of its holdings and stop rolling over maturing treasuries. what is the fomc's current thinking about how long after liftoff you should wait to stop reinvestments and rollovers? and given the very large amounts of treasuries maturing next year, would it make sense for the fomc to vary the pace of runoff that it allows? chair yellen: so, we issued in september a set of normalization principles and, as you noted the committee

indicated that we will eventually cease reinvestments or diminish the pace of reinvestments as a way of gradually reducing the size of or portfolio over time. we said we would do that when economic conditions were appropriate after we begin raising rates because we want changes in our target range for the federal funds rates to be the main tool by which we shift the stance of monetary policy. week of not made any decision at this point about how long it will be once we begin to raise rates, before we reduce or cease reinvestment. we will see how things go in the committee, we'll revisit that and make a decision at later time. you also indicated that we have

a substantial quantity of treasuries that will roll off our balance sheet over the next several years, that's true. and that will i think over the next two years, almost $800 billion will mature. they will be short-term, obviously, treasuries at that point. that's a way in which we anticipate diminishing the size of our portfolio. questioner: can i follow up, please? some people have suggested that you might need to manage those runoffs a little more granularly, if that's a word. perhaps pursue a different track for treasuries, or given

quarters when you have very large amounts maturing and there might be a spike in long-term interest rates, that maybe would you vary the rate of runoff. is that any consideration given to that? chair yellen: that's something for which we've made no plans and i don't really have anything for you on that. questioner: market watch. we hear that productivity takes a long time before you can understand it. but it's been very low in this cycle. what does that mean for fed policy? chair yellen: i agree, it has been very low. it's been disappointingly low. a positive aspect of what is fundamentally a disappointment is that the labor market has improved more rapidly than might have been expected, given the pace of economic growth.

so, the unemployment rate has come down more rapidly than i would have expected and the labor market is improved more rapidly than i would have expected. we have written down our estimates of potential output. in the long run, it is a disappointing factor about the ultimate prospects for the u.s. economy, if it continues. i would expect it to pick up. and as you can see from the longer-run growth projections, most fomc participants believe it will pick up above current levels. but it means it's something that would, if it persists, retard living standards and would likely retard real wage

growth and improvement in living standards for ordinary households. questioner: peter cooke of bloomberg television. i want clarification, if i could, and then a question about congress, a follow-up. first of all, you've been asked this before, i want to see if we can clarify. when you decide to start raising interest rates, could that decision happen at a meeting in which it's not followed by a press conference? and on my congressional question i would like to get your reaction to your -- the treatment you received up on capitol hill the other day, didn't look like a very pleasant experience, certainly in front of the house, at least at moments. i wondered if you have concerns about that, has the relationship between the fed and congress deteriorated to a point that it causes you concern, what if anything can you do about it as well? chair yellen: let me start with the press conferences. i said this previously and let me reiterate it. every meetinging that the federal open market committee

has is a live meeting in which we could make a decision. clearly if we decided for the first time to raise the federal funds rate it is something i think would be appropriate to answer questions and explain in more detail. we've long had the capacity to call a press conference after a meetinging that -- meeting that we would hold by tell conference, by conference call, and that's a capacity that was used on a number of occasions by my predecessor during the financial crisis. it is something that remains a capacity we have and would expect to use if it were necessary. on the second part of your question with respect to testimony. it's very important for the

federal reserve to be accountable to congress. we have a wide range of responsibilities and it's entirely appropriate for me to testify and be quized on a range of topics by members of congress. i think i need to be ready to answer questions on any aspect of federal reserve behavior and that's an important principle. cred c.d. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the federal reserve chairman's news conference from earlier. here's how the associated press reported on that news conference. they said, the federal reserve signaled wednesday that it needs to see further improvement in the job market. and higher inflation before it

raises interest rates from record lows. at the same time a.p. writes, the fed at least opened the door to a rate increase later this year. by no longer saying it will be, quote, patient to start the raise -- to start raising its benchmark rate. we are back live at the cannon house office building across from the capitol. the house budget committee has been meeting today and -- on the 2016 budget proposal. they are obviously in recess. they were expected back live here momentarily. we will continue our live coverage here on c-span and also on cspan.org. just to let you know also, the senate budget committee meetinging today as well. they're marking up the 2016 proposal. and that's under way. you can follow that on cspan.org too. the house is finished for the day. they finished up work on the second of two science bills that they debated this week. they're back tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern for legislative work, taking up a bill dealing with rules prom umgate -- promulgated by the national labor relations boards dealing with unions.

that is tomorrow in the house. the senate is stuck a bit on the nomination -- on the human trafficking bill rather, on the floor now, senator john cornyn of texas talking and debates with senator dine feinstein of california on moving forward with that anti-human traffickinging bill. they tried earlier but failed to get to 60 votes they needed to move forward on that. the majority leader said the senate won't move forward on the nomination of loretta lynch to be attorney general until they start dealing the human traffickinging bill. the debate continues and our senate coverage of course is over on c-span2.

>> it will be at least a few minutes before the house budget committee gavels back in to continue their markup of the 2016 budget proposal. the chairman did say they expect to be working until midnight

tonight and we will continue our live coverage. until they return, part of today's "washington journal." guest: he is on his basketball team football team he is the son of a single mom who works

three jobs and cares about him so much and he is a big brother to a little boy and two cyst percent. and in many ways, just a typical teenager. one day last summer he was at boxing practice and felt he needed to get home really quickly because he was due to babysit and his cousin was with him and he said let's rob a bike and went along with that and in the process, he flashed a gun at the person he robbed. it was a b-b gun and maybe the victim didn't know that and was probably frightened and next morning he was arrested and he is in lucas county, toledo, ohio. which if you are arrested, this is a place that is trying to help kids get on the right path without necessarily locking them

up if they don't pose a serious threat to public safety. and we can talk more about how the court went through the process with trayvon and what happened with him. host: what were the options for trayvon? guest: they had the option to imprison him locally or send him to state prison. but that is something they try to avoid because they feel like if they can keep kids in the community and closer to home, they will have better outcomes in the long runs with those kids and improve public safety by showing kids a better way and more connected to their community and families and seeing families as a potential strength and asset in that redemption process. so they go through a risk assessment that they have developed based on research to see who is at high risk for

re-offending. the judge dl hold him in detention for several weeks to understand whether he was high risk or not. she didn't know it was a b-b gun and just saw gun in the report. turns out he had no gang affiliation, which kids who do end up in prison, they are mixed up in gangs. he had a very stable home life, school life. he was involved in sports which kept him motivated and in their risk assessment he was not at high risk for re-offending and channeled him into the youth advocate program where he was assigned a mentor and was able to meet with the mentor every week and assess what their needs might be and befriended trayvon and the biggest impact that i got a sense from him was, he learned how to make better decisions and learned how to take those decisions more seriously and got a new group of friends and started to trust

what the mentor was telling him so that really helped him improve. guest: when they started to look at that population, they discovered they had kids mixed up in there sometimes who were just absent from school or parents reported them as

unrulely or maybe runaways and would get locked up until trial and they would be mixed up sometimes with murderers. they wanted to get smarter about who is locked up and why and do they need to be. and when they started looking closely, most kids didn't pose a risk. host: some of the statistics that was in the piece. 61,000 in 2011 juveniles were incarcerated. during the decade between 2001 and 2011, youth crime rate fell. incarcerations fell 46%. it costs about $241 a day to incarcerate a juvenile. however, you note in the story that there are some who think that you could be jeopardizing

the safety of communities by not locking up some of these juveniles. guest: there is some debate on that. it was haven't a very loud debate -- i had to go looking for that for that will alternative opinion. i think there is a pretty large consensus moving in the direction and certainly in the community but more research is needed on how best to serve kids in the community and where you will find the biggest advocates on the public side of things. and i did talk to a prosecute in toledo who was a little worried that the pendulum may be swinging too far in the direction of serving kids in the communities. she cited cases where there were felonies committed by youth and were assigned to community detention and would have to check in in the morning and kept busy all day with community service and treatment and they would be monitored even at night

or g.p.s. monitoring and that kind of thing and yet they had further felonies and she was a little worried that at times they would be recommended to again have community detention rather than being locked up. she worried that the deterrent factor of -- if the threat of going off to state prison, juvenile prison was reduced too much, that that would lose a deterrent factor there. host: taking your questions and comments about stacy's story in the "christian science monitor." we have divided our lines differently. parents call in at -- host: mickey is a parent in illinois and go ahead.

caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a complete deterrent for children who are going getting into trouble again and again and again. there are so many cities that don't have anything for kids to do. besides maybe go stealing a bike, not that it's never happened. i live in dixon, illinois and we have a beautiful pool that was dedicated by ronald reagan and this is his hometown by the way in the 1950's and was dedicated to the war memorial. that pool went down and so many communities in the areas right here -- in the tri-state they are getting rid of swimming pools and i remember when i was a kid and even my children who are 38 and 39 they had

something to do. there's nothing for them to do in these towns besides maybe get into trouble. guest: thank you for your comment. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org mr. price: we have amendment number 4 from the gentlelady the gentlelady will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 relating to medicare. mr. price: you are recognized for six minutes. >> the population of the united states continues to be on the verge of dramatic democratic shifts. since 2002, the number of americans aged 65 and older has increased by 21% and the aging of the baby boom generation will only accelerate this growth.

older americans will account for 20% of the u.s. population, up from 13% today. by 2050, the population of older americans is expected to double by over 80 million people. by 2050, the population of americans aged 85 and over estimated to more than triple from 5.5 million in 2010 to 19 million in 2050. and 71% of these adults will need assistance with one activity of daily living. they can't feed themselves, dress themselves or bathe themselves. as a former secretary of the new mexico secretary of aging and long-term services, i understand the difficulties that older americans face. they face unique set of risks and challenges like affordable housing and transportation. but chronic health issues and health care costs may be the

biggest threat to the economic security of older americans and poverty aggravates everything because of course the poorer your the sicker you are. medicare has helped countless americans and their families be independent and financially secure including an estimated 55 million americans who are receiving benefits today. since medicare was signed into law, poverty among older americans has dropped from 35% the year i was born, 1959, to 9% today. however, medicare is not perfect. although medicare covers all adults aged 65 and older premiums deductibles and co-pays have left many americans with higher experience expenses. between 2010 and 2040, annual outof pocket health care costs will more than double in inflation adjusted dollars.

seniors have saved more than $158 billion on prescription drugs since the a.c.a. helped close the prescription drug doughnut hole and the life has been extended by 13 years. our path forward should build upon these successes and strengthen medicare and improve essential benefits and contain costs but this republican budget moves us backward and turns medicare into a voucher program and puts insurance companies ahead of seniors and shifts more costs to beneficiaries and does nothing to contain health care spending and forces seniors to pay more or skimp out on necessary medical care. based on what we know from nonpartisan analyses, there is no evidence that a voucher plan

will significantly reduce medicare spending without significantly increasing costs for beneficiaries. my amendment would preserve the medicare guarantee and protects benefits for over 55 million americans. it may be convenient and easy to shift costs on to seniors on a piece of paper. the hard thing to do is to strengthen medicare to improve its essential benefits and help older americans live with the dignity that they deserve. this is what we should be doing. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. i now recognize for seven minutes, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. mrs. black: i want to set some things straight to make sure we have the actual facts on the table. so, let's look what the c.b.o. has told us about the medicare

program. they tell us that it will be bankrupt by 2030 unless there are significant reforms that are made to the program. second, let's also take a look at our failing trust fund and look at what the affordable care act and the president's rate raiding of medicare to $700 billion out of a fund that was already failing that has only worsened the problem of a fund that is not sustainable. in addition to that, as a proponent of this amendment has alluded to, there are 10,000 baby boomers that are retiring every day that are coming into this program. we see that a fund that is already failing. it's going to have a significant number of new folks coming into it. so let's look at what the republicans propose. first of all i don't understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to call this a voucher program.

a voucher program is where you give someone money, they then take the money to go out and purchase whatever the product is. this is not a voucher program but a premium support program much like what we have in the work force for those employers who provide insurance. so our plan would allow the recipients choice, which is a really good thing to be able to choose a program that best suits their needs. it then -- the government is a guaranteed program would then take that subsidy, that payment and actually give it to the plan. it's very much like medicare part d, which is working. so we know there is a program out there that already is similar to what we are proposing and it has worked and that tells us that this program would also work. i also want to correct something

to say we are going to lose medicare as we know it. our plan actually provides for traditional fee-for-service and remains an option forever. but seniors i talk to don't want us to tell them what is best for them. they want to be able to choose and will have a choice between that premium support program or stay intraadditional fee-for-service and they make that decision. this plan has been scored and it does show, the latest report from c.b.o. shows that premium support can actually produce savings to the seniors and also to the federal government. so we're talking about a plan that goes bankrupt in on 2030 and looking at real reform, we know by the congressional budget office we know this is a program that can work. it does slow the medicare spending and transitions to a new medicare program for future generations. those who are currently in it and those who come to the future

have that choice. we also on our program make sure that those who need the most health get that health. those at the lower income will get more support with their premium assistance and those at a higher income will get less at a significantly higher income may get nothing at all to help them because they can afford that themselves. it gives our seniors more freedom and allows competition to come into the market. and any time there is competition, it drives down the costs. that's something that occurs in other programs and will work in this program as well. the real threat, the real threat to medicare is the guaranteed status quo. we know that by all of the reports that are done, by not doing anything, that is really the largest threat and doing nothing or worse trying to ration the care threatens the

seniors' health security. i would urge my colleagues to look at the true facts of this and urge them to vote no on this amendment. and mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. price: does the gentleman from arkansas wish to speak on this amendment? the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for explaining what is in our budget proposal for medicare and how we are very much concerned about the future of medicare, my parents are on medicare and we know people who use medicare. and we want to preserve it. and as was just stated, it is due to go bankrupt in 2030. we have to implement changes now or this is going to get worse as we move down the road. it is not a voucher program.

and if people choose to stay on the fee-for-service program they can stay on it. why are we afraid to give them the choice and options to choose something different, something that's proven to work, something that's projected to save money and provide more options for seniors, which means more market competition, which means lower prices and better quality? this is a great opportunity that we have to implement the ideas that are in this budget proposal and i hope everyone will give this a lot of consideration and a lot of positive consideration and we will adopt this.

ms. lujan grisham: not only does it affect their economic security and poverty rate will go up but cause health care cost shifts in emergency rooms and hospitals to go up. this isn't a cost savings at all in the health care system and the reality is that the $700 billion that we referred to in

the affordable care act gave it back to beneficiaries. mr. price: question is on the amendment offered by ms. lujan grisham. recorded vote is requested. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock no. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall? mrs. blackburn, no. mr. stutzman mr. sanford no.

mr. womack, no. mr. brath, no. mr. blum, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascrell? mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. kaptur, aye. ms. lee aye.

mr. polk and, aye. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. liu, aye. plfer moulton? mr. garrett, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. stutzman? mr. mooney? mr. mooney. mr. pascrell? mr. mcdermott? mr. moulton? mr. chairman. mr. price: no. have all members voted? all members voted. any member wish to change their votes? if not, the clerk will report the tally. the clerk: the ayes are 20 --

the ayes are 11 and the noes are 20. mr. price: gave me a heart attack. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amendment number 5. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by mrs. dingell related to medicaid. mr. price: the gentlelady is recognized for six minutes. mrs. dingell: i'm offering a simple amendment that would reject the cuts to medicaid over 10 years that is contained in the budget resolution we are considering today. my amendment will ensure that seniors persons with disabilities and working families do not lose access to critical health care and long-term care services by reversing the cuts to the base medicaid program contained in this resolution. medicaid is the workhorse of our

health care system. it's a critical part of the safety net that provides essential health care and long-term care services to 69 million americans. it is not the most glamorous program but it has been very successful in supporting the most vulnerable among us. medicaid beneficiaries include poor children and their families someone with cerebral palsy or m.s. or autism or a senior who needs help getting dressed in the morning or feeding themselves. it provides health insurance for one in three children in america. these are exactly the people that would be damaged by these drastic cuts to the medicaid program. turning medicaid into a block grant, as this budget proposes, is not the answer. it does not nothing to reduce health care costs but would shift burdens to the states and would lead to a dramatic cut to

health care cut for the 69 million americans who depend on medicaid and imposing a serious financial hardship on them and their families. in fact, the c.b.o. analyzed a similar proposal from then chairman ryan's budget and they concluded that states would likely have to make significant cuts to their program if adopted, and i quote cutbacks might reduce eligibility for medicaid, fewer services, lower payments to providers or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries. all of which would reduce access to care. is this really what the american people are asking for? c.b.o. has also estimated turning medicaid into a block grant would results in states dropping between 14 million and

20 million people by the 10th year. is this right when we have seen the uninsured rate has dropped? we cannot afford to take a step backwards right when we are beginning to make so much progress. we also cannot forget the impact these medicaid cuts will have on seniors. seniors and persons with disabilities make up one quarter of the medicaid population and account for 2/3 of the spending. medicaid is the largest payer for long-term care services and support in the united states, which most americans will need at some point in their lives. medicaid pays for nearly half of all long-term care in this country when this program was designed for that purpose. let's protect those. you'll hear from me on that

later. we should not be cutting medicaid, which provides such essential services to so many who need it. and i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. i'm pleased to have the gentlelady from tennessee be recognized for seven minutes, ms. blackburn. mrs. blackburn: i apologize my mistake. i recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, 10 minutes in opposition. mr. rokita: i hope i'm not out of the vice chairman's job. i appreciate the chairman recognizing me and i appreciate again this issue being brought to the foreflont. i want to address some of the things that have been said so far and make sure that everyone

understands that what our budget does, what the flexibility in it does for medicaid is strengthen and preserve it for the future, to make sure that those who really and truly need the care get it. because right now, that's not the case. as the gentlewoman alluded to. the current system, the current program is broken and that's an understatement. i want to be clear that this budget that we're proposing intends to spend $3.33 trillion over the next decade on medicaid and other health programs. medicaid spending increases over the 10-year window that this budget assumes. according to c.b.o., current medicaid, the program is growing at 5% to 6% while the economy

grows at 2.3%. this budget simply slows the growth in spending and gives states the flexibility so regardless of the slow growth in spending, they can still meet the needs of those citizens, those constituents, who truly need the care. spending growth at the rate that i just described is simply unsustainable and if it's unsustainable by definition, it's ultimately not going to be available to anyone. the problem with medicaid is that it just too spends, it's not getting access health care to the patients. it was mentioned repeatedly, access that people need. time and time again we hear of medicaid patients who are unable to find a doctor. patients on medicaid have worst health outcomes than those who have no nurns. and doctors and nurses who want to treat these patients cannot

afford their reimbursement rates which could be 70% below what private insurance would pay. the current medicaid system meets larger deficits. states are now spending more on this program than they are on education. something has to be done. when something is this broke, the wrong answer is to throw more money at it expecting a different result. and that's analogous to insanity. medicaid has one of the most highest estimated improper payments. total spending on medicaid that combines federal and state shares is expected to total $578 billion. over the next 10 years, c.b.o. expects it to be $4.6 trillion. the solution to the medicaid

program is not massive spending increases like obamacare proposes. the answer is to put states back in charge of their own medicaid programs and given the power to fit the needs of their populations. there are numerous examples already across the nation where states have used existing albeit limited flexibility found in the current medicaid programs, waiver programs, that have allowed them to achieve these results without increasing their budgets. look at rhode island, hardly a conservative state. our plan gives the flexibility needed for states so they can do frankly what this federal government has failed to do. and chiefly among them three things. let the government closest to the people determine who actually needs the help that medicaid provides. let's let the states determine what kind of help that looks like. and finally how that help is disbursed and received. i trust the states.

i trust our local officials and our local community leaders to come up with a system that they know is best for their community. i yield two minutes totality the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar. mr. moolenaar: thank you very much. and i also want to speak to the issue of flexibility because as a former state legislator, one of the things we observed in our state was the opportunity to innovate. when the medicaid expansion went into effect in michigan, there was tremendous opportunity to improve the lifestyles, choices and incentivize healthy behaviors. now the state had to go to the federal government for a waiver on that. what we are doing here is saying let's give states the ultimate flexibility and innovate, according to their unique characteristics.

in michigan in the year 2000, we had between 1-8 to 1-9 residents now with the medicaid expansion we have 1-4 citizens on medicaid. as we have noticed across the country, over 30% of physicians are not even accepting new medicaid patients and this is at the same time when federal reimbursement rates for medicaid are being cut across the country. so, it is not a sustainable program. i think what this does puts us on a far better path to innovate and to encourage healthy behaviors and get on a more sustainable path for the future and i yield back. mr. rokita: i yield the remainder of the time. >> i will be brief and reiterate some of the things that have been said and tell you the

experience in my state, not only -- we have not a fourth of the population getting medicaid services but a third of the population getting medicaid services and 30% of them are able-bodied working-age adults. medicaid is not more than k-12 education but higher education. it is a single largest expenditure in our state by far. i was told when i got here that a 3% or 4% growth is considered a cut now i realize that's the way things are perceived up here. this budget makes medicaid sustainable over the future and i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. mrs. dingell: i have great respect for the gentleman especially the gentleman from michigan. but i would say the flexibility

that he talks about is exactly what does exist in this program and you're all talking about the amount of money that is being spent is because there is so much need out there and we have a real crisis in this country. every state in the nation has at least one medicaid waiver and over 350 waivers nationwide. states can already decide who they cover, what benefits they provide and how they deliver health care services. if states want to experiment with deficit models, they have the ability to do it. you say that people don't have access to doctors. but numerous studies have showed that medicaid has improved, specifically the landmark medicaid setting in oregon found that people in medicaid were 40% likely to have suffered a decline -- mr. price: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment

offered by mrs. dingell. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. dingell: i ask for a roll call vote. the clerk: mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett. mr. diaz-balart? mr. comb -- mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black no. mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn, no. mrs. hartzler, no. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman? mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no.

mr. womack, no. mr. bratt no. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney? mr. could have man no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman no. mr. van hollen aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. cast tore aye. mr. mcdermott? ms. lee aye. mr. pocan, aye.

ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. liu, aye. mr. moulton? mr. moulton? mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart no. mr. woodal, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. chairman. mr. price: no. the clerk: mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wishing to change their votes? the clerk will report the tally. the clerk: mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 12 and the noes are 20. mr. price: noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

the chair will make afew amounsments we will continue through the remainder of the markup without stopping. we will have a bipartisan meal lunch, supper in the room. and we ask members to partake during the time when they're not participating in debate, to be present for all votes and i apologize for the break we had before, but i think we can finish in good season if we keep rolling through this. at this point, we have amendment number 6 up. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 by mr. pascrell related to health care coverage. >> i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for offering

this amendment to protect tax credits to keep health coverage affordable for american families. you are always looking out for hard-working families. the affordable care act is working for americans and republicans want to throw another wrench into the mix and eliminate tax credits for families that were able to buy health coverage in the exchanges. this caught my eye because florida families will be the most impacted if the tax credits go away. despite the political opposition at home in the state of florida we have 1.6 million sign up in the exchange and took the personal responsibility and signed up and many are finding it affordable. the average premium is $82 per month premium, meaning life and death means better quality of life for their families and i oppose what the republicans are doing in their budget and that

is to pull the rug out from under them by saying we are going to repeal the affordable care act and eliminate their tax credits. well let me say something about nicole peterson, a single mother in my district who got divorced in the past year, you are going to hurt her and her family. she got a plan for her and her three daughters. she receives a credit of 150. what she said is phenomenal for our family and enables me not to be able to afford the policy and helps me to stay healthy and do i go to the doctor or buy groceries. mr. pascrell: from the date it became law and i don't say it empty-handed my friends on the other side of the aisle have done everything to repeal it.

this is like the prescription drug plan. we lost and you guys won. we went back to our districts and made it work and then we made a commitment, if we ever become the majority we would fill in the doughnut hole, you don't pay premiums and don't get benefits. we were very different, mr. chairman than you were. the house has voted 56 times to repeal the a.c.a. we shouldn't be surprised that your budget assumes that the a.c.a. is appealed. today's markup is an opportunity to put in real terms what the repeal means. my amendment would restore the a.c.a.'s premium tax credits which helps millions of americans that offset their costs. why are we against this credit but we want to defend the credit for the 1% and to those

corporations in this country? i want you to be arguing on behalf of the american people. eight million people received tax credits, next year 15 million people. my home state of new jersey, 254,316 people receive a tax credit worth $306 a month. the budget is a tax hike on every single one of them. repealing the a.c.a. and taking away these tax credits will only reverse the progress that this law has made in expanding affordable and i want you to stand in front of those people and tell them you know longer have that tax credit and if you have it, we are going to take it away and raise your taxes and hope you vote for me. reaching a low of 12.9%. the uninsured the uninsured rate for working age adults has

dropped from 20.3% to 13.2% since october ever 2013. i think that's progress. maybe you don't consider that progress. i consider that progress. when the a.c.a. marketplace has opened for business, a 3% drop in the uninsured rate. the c.b.o. projects without the a.c.a. there would be 17 million more uninsured people this year and 23 million more next year. and what is your plan to they those people? we are waiting to hear this. i said this afternoon, the curtain is coming down after two days. this curtain doesn't go up. you have no plan. before the a.c.a., they were paying for plans that provided them coverage they didn't need. and low caps on coverage. americans were denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and

insurance companies increased their premiums where they couldn't afford insurance. people were charged more because insurance companies decided they were too old, too sick or even the wrong gender. wow! what do you know about that? you just discovered that? and yet what was my republicans answer? repeal repeal, repeal, repeal. drill, drill, drill, drill. you think republicans cobbled all the time they tried to undermine the a.c.a., they can't find anything good to say about it. but then again the budget provides no alternative. we'll get to that. mr. price: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i yield back to you. mr. price: the gentlelady from

tennessee, ms. blackburn is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i appreciate that and to my friend across the way there, i hope that mr. pascrell to me in tennessee -- i would love to have him hear the real life stories that has adversely impacted people, individuals. you know, there is a lady down in my district, an accountant. she was in a plan that was deemed unacceptable by obamacare. you know what her insurance costs went upper month? 700%. she has been adversely impacted. you could also go with me to wayne county and you could talk to employers who will tell you that the impacts of obamacare are very, very real to them.

they see them every single day and they want this off the books. you ask what is our plan. let me tell you something. last year, energy and commerce, we had 162 different bills. we had 162 different -- no, sir, i will not yield to you. no, sir, i will not. we had 162 different bills that were there as replacement bills for obamacare. some great examples across state lines to open insurance. guess what happens? c.b.o. says they would end there because costs of lower. when it comes to this issue of subsidy and i will say this, i have to say i'm glad you are looking at what will happen after the case and the decision in the courts because you know that day is coming and you know you are going to see a ruling

that will probably not be in your favor. so i give you credit for coming to the table with something, because we got 36 states that didn't set up their own state-run exchanges and you know you've's got to look at what is going to happen. this is a letter i got from the secretary. and i think this is why insurance is too expensive to afford and why we need to get this off the books. while we are confident in our position, a decision against the administration in the king case would cause massive damage. first millions of people would lose their health insurance subsidies and therefore would no longer be able to afford health insurance. -- we've got a product too expensive to afford. this is why we need to work together to get the costs of not only health insurance but the delivery of health care, get the

cost down and improve the access. that should be a goal that we share. second, without tax subsidies healthy individuals would be far less likely to purchase health insurance, leaving a disproportionate number of sick individuals and the individual insurance marketplace. now this is from the secretary talking about the plan and you got to have the subsidies because the product is too expensive to afford. so therefore, i think it be loofs us to realize that what we've got here is the president's law made health insurance more costly by requiring plans to include washington, d.c.-determined benefits and levels of coverage, the health insurance exchange subsidies are going to cost taxpayers 1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. it is going to adversely impact

the taxpayer because they are paying more. and the subsidies cost a lot more than that however, because americans lose their freedom of choice in the health coverage that they want to purchase. i at this time, want to yield to mrs. black from tennessee for her comments. mrs. black: i thank my colleague for yielding. i want to talk about what i'm hearing in my district. this past saturday i was at a birthday for my graund daughter and one of the grad mothers said this hasn't helped me at all, even though my premiums are partially paid for me and she is lower-income, single ladies working hard in a factory, and she said this is what is happening for me. the premiums are high, but i do

get some assistance with that, but my co-pays are so high that i can't afford to pay my co-pays in order to get the services that i need. she has high blood pressure and diabetes and cannot afford her medications because the co-pays are so hard. what i'm hearing throughout my district consistently is the fact is that i can't use the same doctor i used to and the hospital doesn't accept this form of insurance. i thought i was going into a good program and there are other priors, maybe their physical therapist that they no longer use. i would like to be able to say that this was the answer, but it's not the answer. the answer is actually having a more patient-centered program where it's not a washington down program but a program that comes from the communities and up,

where there is affordability and accessibility and quality and innovation and choice. right now there is not choice. there are a limited number of programs in these states that they can choose from. their doctor is not on there and hospital is not there. what good is it to have insurance but the insurance is not providing what you need. you can't get your medicines and can't see your doctor or the hospital you are accustomed to. despite this, the reports are saying that even though maybe we have eight million report and another report, 16 million, but that is adding in some people like the students who are in school that are on their parents, but even despite that, the reports are saying we are still going to have 30 million people that are uninsured. we can do better and we can allow this not to be a washington-down program but being one where we put the

patients families and doctors in charge. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. price: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: i'm waiting anxiously to hear the great plan in the sky, i'm waiting to hear the alternatives. my colleagues, for their remarks and recognition for the vast importance of the affordable care act. the reality is that the republican budget would take away affordable health insurance for millions of americans and increase the number of people without health insurance and there is no plan to fix this. you cite several cases. i'm talking about the millions and millions who have insurance that didn't have it before. everybody's important and don't get me wrong. we never said a.c.a. is a perfect plan. but you said plan b is a perfect plan and of course now, it's closer to perfection because we

changed it. until last year, republican efforts to repeal the a.c.a. were in many respects impactful only in the abstract. today, the major coverage expansion has gone into effect. can i finish the sentence. only 20 more words. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pascrell: now have health insurance because of this law and many of them have premium tax credits that help them afford their insurance. i hope you'll vote for this amendment. it makes sense. it doesn't take you off your path. mr. price: i hope my charity is not a bad omen for the future. the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. pascrell. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman requests a recorded vote. the clerk: mr. row keitha? mr. garrett? mr. garrett, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mrs. black, no. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn, no. ms. hartzler, no. mr. rice, no. mr. stutzman?

mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. bratt, no. mr. blum, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. gross man, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westerman, no. mr. bue can -- buchanan, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye.

ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott? ms. lee, aye. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham aye. mrs. dingell, aye. mr. liu aye. mr. nor cannot, aye. mr. moulton, aye. mr. rokita? mr. rokita, no. mr. stutzman, no. mr. chairman. mr. price: no. the clerk: mr. chairman, no. mr. price: have all members voted? any member wish to change their votes? the clerk will report the tallly. the clerk: the ayes are 13 and

the noes are 22. mr. price: the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is number 7 and the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute copies. the clerk: amendment number 7 offered by ms. moore relating to the bill. ms. moore: i yield two minutes each to representative barbara lee, representative ryan and representative lujan, respectively new york that order. -- respectively in that order. if i may note the gentlelady controls all the time. ms. moore: i will claim the time for rebuttal. mr. price: