government, then judiciary committee chairman joseph biden, our vice president, i drifted this. and if a supreme court vacancy that it that year, should be deferred until the election season is over. and there is the interview with the washington post. you can read it here. if someone steps down, i would highly recommend the president .ot name someone if the president did send someone up, i would also seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee. chairman biden also explained this recommendation. he said that any election-year nominee would be caught up in a parlor struggle over the control

of the supreme court. interview, he also said, can you imagine dropping a nominee into that fight, into that cauldron in a presidential year? whichvironment within such a hearing would be held would be so supercharged to be able to be distorted. biden later, it chairman talked about the confirmation process and further explained his recommendation for deferring should a supreme court vacancy occur. he repeated his recommendation regarding how to handle a nomination that year. let me just refer to this chart and read it. president bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and name a nominee--

until the november election is completed. if the president presses and election-year nomination, the senate should seriously consider confirmationg hearings until after the political campaign season is over. chairman biden again explained the reasons for this recommendation. the confirmation process is degraded in the wake of controversial nominations, and in that year, it would be -- bickering would evaluationhe serious required. in addition, the session was already underway, and different parties control the nomination and confirmation. bidenpresident, chairman could be talking about 2016 instead of 1992.

the factorsh of leading to his recommendations for deferring the process in 1992 exist if a same or greater measure today. not a single democrat objected to chairman biden's recommendation to deferred the appointment process. not one. not one democrat. say today israts true, that the constitution requires a prompt hearing and a nomination,or each surely someone, anyone could have said so back in 1992. searching the 1992 congressional record in vain for the slogan "do your job." it appears a different cost to should was in force in 1992 because no democrat or leftist

organization insisted that it required a prompt hearing. it was claimed that the senate would be shirking its constitutional duty by following chairman biden's recommendation. step regarding this vacancy then is to decide how best to do so in the circumstances we face today. generally and guidance from leaders specifically councils strongly in favor of deferring the confirmation until after the presidential election season is over. that is clearly the best course for the senate, the judiciary, and, of course, the nation. there is another important factor. elections have consequences. democrats and allies also used but people who believe that 2012 was the only

election relevant to the scalia vacancy. they want people to believe that because president obama was reelected in 2012, he should be able to a point whenever, however he likes. this might be another page in the democratic fictional constitution, because it says no such thing. the2012 election did give president the power to nominate, and he can exercise that power until his final moments in office next january, and i will uphold that right. he has exercised that right. the 2012 election was not the only one involving the judicial appointment process. the 2014 had election significance. the american people gave control of the senate and therefore

control of the confirmation process to republicans. might find some guidance from our friends on the left in addressing this circumstance. president ronald reagan nominated someone to the court in 1987. after hishree years reelection and a year after the senate majority changed hands. here is how the new york times address the argument that elections have consequences. we will see it right on this chart. the president's supporters suggest the he minimally that having won the election, he has every right to try to change the court's direction. and the democrats got the 1986 election, regaining control of it, and they have every right to resist. the same circumstance obviously exists today. by the way, no one should spend time wondering if the new york times is applying the same principle today. it is not. electionand the 2016

will have tremendous consequences for the american people and the courts. the americane people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the direction of the court for and for the senate who gives advice and consent. democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals have very different views about the kind of judge america needs print justice scalia represented a refined approach to judge you. as i mentioned earlier, president obama has advocated and expansive approach. i have served on the judiciary committee longer than anyone but one since it was created 200 years ago, and one thing is clear. the conflict over judicious appointments is a conflict over judicial power. the jobless captions i have described have radically different consequences and

implications for our nation and our liberty. the american people have expressed increasing concern about the supreme court direction since president obama was elected. americans, for example, believe that supreme court justices decide cases based on their personal views and then a object to them doing so. with the untimely passing of justice scalia, the american people have a unique opportunity and having a voice in charging the path forward. mr. president, i cannot conclude today on what is widely the presidents strategy and nominating judge garland to the scalia vacancy. the senate confirmed to him to the u.s. court of appeals by a vote of 76 to 23 in 1977. to, i suspect,d

lead them to believe the senate should do the same thing. the confirmation process regarding the scalia vacancy will be deferred for the reasons i have explained. that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the and the of the nominee, republicans made our decision known weeks ago before the president had chosen anyone. i also want to emphasize the consideration is relevant to a person's nomination to one position do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion regarding another position, especially the supreme court. here also i would like my colleagues to be aware of the guidance we can draw on in the past. in 1990, joseph biden presided of a nomination to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. and i will refer you --

well, we do not have a chart on that. this is what chairman biden said. quoting, there is a fundamental distinction between what is required of and should be sought of a second court judge and a district court judge and a supreme court justice. he was right then. and is right today. democratic senators make the same point in 2005 when they sought to distinguish their early support for the john roberts appeals court nomination from their intention to oppose his supreme court nomination. senator schumer, for example, our listing with senator from new york -- our distinguished senator from new york called it a whole new ballgame. he said you have to start from scratch. the supreme court is different from the lower courts. i could not agree more. with the standards of the

democratic colleagues, and the partisan shoe is on the other foot. senate republicans have explained repeatedly and in detail why the best way to exercise our power in this situation is to defer of the confirmation process. that conclusion is completely -- if theto whoever president chooses a nominee or if he does so through that nominee is. president obama could have followed chairman biden's advice and deferred a nomination for the scalia vacancy. he chose not to do so. for the reasons that i said, president, guidance, the senate should follow that advice and defer for the good of the senate, the judiciary, and the american people. all of the screaming and shouting that goes on in this most horrific of all

presidential elections, at least in modern times. it, and i amed of really tired of politicizing the court, which is what my colleagues think he likes to do, so i do not think it is unreasonable to ask our colleagues to put this off until after the next president is elected. is, way whoever that person that person will have the power to nominate whoever that person wants to. consent, and that might be problematic to the next president, but the fact of the important that we recognize it is not any person that we are against.

it is the process and integrity of the court that we are for, and in this particular election season that is the most toxic since i have been in the united states senate. this is toxic, and i personally do not went to see the court demeaned during this particular time. nds: mr.brown's -- rou president, i rise today to discuss the naming of judge garland to fill the position of justice scalia. with his brilliant mind and animated character, he fiercely fought against judicial activism and legislating from the edge. he will be greatly missed by not

only his family and loved ones but all americans who shared his core conservative values and beliefs. nominate ant shall replacement, as he did today, and the senate has a cost to shall roll of advice and consent -- has a constitutional role of advice and can read. i take this very seriously. the decision the supreme court makes often have long-lasting ramifications that with one-vote margins can't radically alter the course of our country. at the time when our current administration has stretched the limits of the law and attended to circumvent congress and the law, choosing the right candidate with the aptitude for this appointment is as important as ever. i have determined that my benchmark for the next supreme court justice will be justice scalia himself. deference to state

a gold standard by which his replacement should be measured. as ever republican member of the judiciary committee and mitch their firmexpressing believes that the people of the united states deserve to have a voice in determining the next supreme court justice. in that letter, they wrote, and i quote, article two of the constitution is clear. the president may nominate judges of the supreme court. the power to grant or withhold this consent to such nominees rests solely with the united states senate. and quote. result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings related to this issue until after a new president has taken office. this decision will allow the american people to have a voice in the next u.s. supreme court

justice based on who they elect as the president this november. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the american people did have a voice when they elected president obama in 2012, but that election was nearly 3.5 years ago. since that time, a lot has changed in our country, signaling a shift in the american views of our president and a response to his governing. you do have to look further and the 2014 elections. in the 2014 elections, the senate switched from democrat control to republican control. i am one of those republican senators who replaced a democrat in the last election. many of us who ran were not supporting the president's policies. wefact, we ran because wanted to change the direction that the president was moving our country. at the state level in 2012, the last time president obama was were 29 there

republican governors and 20 democrat governors. in 2014, the number of republican governors rose from 29 to 31 while the number of democrat governors decreased from 20 to 18. we saw similar results in state legislative races across the country. in 2012, republicans held the of 26ty in both chambers legislatures. in 2014, that number rose to 30, and if you take into account the conservative leaning but officially nonpartisan leaning nebraska, that number jumps higher, to 31. in 2014, another number was reduced to 11. so in the years since the president's last election, republicans not only have had a strong majority in the house of representatives, they took back control of the united states senate and increased their numbers at the state level, as well. there is no doubt there has been

a clear shift in the minds of the american people since president obama's last election. i believe, just as many of my colleagues, that the republican victories of 2014 should be taken into consideration, and wait toe, we should confirm the next supreme court justice until after a new president takes office. overwhelmingly, south dakota have contacted my office agree. one woman wrote, and i quote, our country hangs in the balance as to what the future of this great country will look like. this decision is much too crucial, and the next supreme should benee nominated by the next president of the united states. and of quote. another from south dakota said this is a rare opportunity for the american voter to actually have a voice in how the court will be structured for many years to come. please, help preserve that opportunity for us all. and of quote. and another example, a woman

thee saying, hearing passing of justice scalia was heartbreaking news. i ask for you to do your part to allow the people to have a say in who the next justice of the supreme court will be. these are just a few example is of the numerous people from south dakota rep contacted my office to say that people should have a voice in the direction this country shall take in the years to come. as much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to see the confirmation of a nominee from the current president, the reality is when the tables are turned, they agree with this position. in fact, it was ice president joe biden that, when he served as the chairman of the judiciary a committee, in 1992 said, quote, it is my view that if the president goes the way where they press for a election year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling

confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. and of quote. harry was minority leader reid said, and once again i quote, the dealings of the united states senate are set forth in the constitution of the united dates. nowhere in that document does it say that the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. the senate democrat next leader, senator schumer, who said in 2007, close to two years 's term andident bush did, that, quote, we should not confirm any bush nominee to the court except in extraordinary circumstances. to the is confirmed fully open seat in the supreme court will be serving a lifetime appointment. keeping in mind the current political makeup of the court,

the man or woman who will replace justice scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the court for a generation to come. it is critically important that the next justice is committed to upholding the principles of the constitution. scalia -- westice owe it to him and the american people to make sure their voice is heard in this election. for these reasons, i agree with my colleagues in the judiciary committee and the senate leadership that we should not hold hearings on a supreme art nominee until after our new president takes office. -- on a supreme court nominee until after our new president takes office.

president, i got a call saying the president was going to announce his choice to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, occasioned by the passing of anti-and scalia, and this morning, i was invited to witness that ceremony, and it was, i think, one of the president's best deliveries in a message to the american people about a critically important issue. i applaud president obama for to serve on the united states supreme court. no one questions that the judge is an outstanding attorney and an exceptional judge during his 19 years in the d.c. circuit court. hisne questions qualifications and experience to serve with distinction on the supreme court. i congratulated his wife lynn, who i just met, and his dollars becky and jesse.

is a proud son of illinois. he is the grandson of immigrants who fled at the somatic persecution. he was born in chicago to parents who ran a small business and volunteered in their community. he graduated at the top of his class in high school, received his undergraduate law degree clerked for a judge in the seventh circuit and justice william brennan of the u.s. supreme court. he has an incredible legal resume. he worked in private practice before he was nominated for the d.c. court. president obama today told the how they were set down after the oklahoma city bombing to handle the prosecution and how he carefully and deftly and professionally handled that prosecution in a

way that it would stick, and it would not be overturned because of legal mistakes. personally attachment and obligation to the victims and the families, and he carried the memorial service bulletin that was given out with the names of each one of the victims. he brought it with him each day to the court. he is that kind of person. a prosecutor, but with empathy to the victims and the determination that he followed to the law. he did. president obama has filled his constitutional responsibility, and now the senate must do this say. article two, section two of the constitution provides the requirement that the president shall -- shall -- a point the nominee to fill the vacancy on the u.s. supreme court, and the president did that today. of theme section constitution goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the senate, the senate, to advise

and consent to the nominee. there is no requirement that we approve the presidents nominate. he wants us to. what it says but is we have a responsibility under the constitution, the same constitution we swore to defend. so the president issued in his authority and the constitutional merrickbility by naming garland. now, what will happen? the leadership says end of story could we are not going to do anything. others have said they will not even meet with this man. they will not even meet with the president's nominee. in the history of the united states of america, there has never been a situation where the president sent a nominee to the where there was not a hearing.

never. and now, the republican majority here has said ignore history. inc. nor the constitution. we are not going to let this president to fill this vacancy. people decide.n there is an election coming. it will be in november. let them pick a president who will then pick the supreme court nominee. well, that is an interesting approach. ifmight have made some sense president barack obama had been reelected to 2012 for a term of three years and two months. he was reelected to a four-year term by millions. he is the president, and to argue that in his last year of office you should not have the authority of the constitution to exercise what is required of is the obvious. by what right do we have in the closing your of a senator's term on the floor of the senate?

if we are disqualified for making important decisions in the last year of our office or term? it is a ridiculous concept. this gives to the american people who the president will be. there are times i have applauded that decision in times i did not, but if you are respectful of this constitution, then you follow the will of the people, and they made a decision by a rally of 5 million votes that barack obama would have this power to four years, until january 27 team, so the president has sent this name, and now it is up to the senate. committee plays an important role in this decision, and i am honored to serve on it. in 2001, the then chairman,

patrick leahy, from vermont, joined with ranking member orrin 2000 one, theyin sent a letter to the senate about this issue for filling supreme court vacancies. letter, senator leahy and senator hatch, saying we both recognize and have every intention of following the committee in the senate with considering supreme court nominees. we should hold a hearing without delay. now, that was the case 15 years ago, and senator hatch, who has been the ranking republican, joined with senator leahy, the democratic chairman. what has changed? the only thing that has changed is we have a president named barack obama. you see, in 1987, there is a vacancy on the supreme court. reagan was president. in 1988, he sent the name to this chamber of anthony kennedy

to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. the senate at that time was under the control of the democrats. ronald reagan, a republican president, sent his nominee to the democratic senate, and what happened? did they say we are not going to fulfill this question work we are to wait until the election? no. no. the senate held a hearing for anthony kennedy and passed him unanimously to serve on the u.s. supreme court, and now, look at what we are facing. republican colleagues who refuse theo their job in constitution. for what reason question mark obviously, for political reasons. standing on principle that the president should not get to name a supreme court justice in his final year. that principle has no history, no precedent, and is virtually impossible to defend. i suggest a different approach to my republican colleagues.

since judge garland is unquestionably qualified, and you would legally vote to confirm him under the next president, why wait? why not vote to confirm him under this president? fill this vacancy means there will be over one the death of justice scalia until the successor is chosen. the only time in history when we have had a vacancy for that period of time was during the civil war, when we were literally at war with one another in the united states. it has is the only time ever happened, there is no excuse for it to happen again. to my friends on the republican side of the aisle, do your job. meet your constitutional responsibility. washington journal, live every day with news and

policy issues. coming up thursday morning, the supreme court reporter for bloomberg joins us to discuss ofsident obama's nomination judge garland to the supreme court. he will also talk about judge garland's personal and legal background and preview the nomination fight on capitol hill. washingtonwatch journal live thursday morning. court is vested with power and with that power comes responsibility. the idea that you have individual sitting on the court not pass thedoes smell test when it comes to the modern democracy. about changesalks

he would like to see at the supreme court including opening cameras andments to imposing term limits. >> the decisions affect all americans. all americans are aware of the third branch of government and the third branch has become so powerful, the idea that issues on voting and marriage and health care and immigration and women's rights, discrimination, i could go on and on. these issues where congress and the executive branch would get together and together a bill, that doesn't happen through the box -- have it anymore. the buck stops at the supreme court. comportress them to them with modern expectations of transparency. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

on q&a. at a news conference today, federal reserve chairman janet yellen said the fed would keep the federal reserve would keep rates -- this is one hour. ms. yellen: good afternoon. today, the federal open market committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent. our decision to keep this accommodative policy stance reflects both our assessment of the economic outlook and the risks associated with that

outlook. the committee's baseline expectations for economic activity, the labor market, and inflation have not changed much since december. with appropriate monetary policy, we continue to expect moderate economic growth, further labor market improvement, and a return of inflation to our 2% objective in 2-3 years. however, global economic and financial developments continue to pose risks. against this backdrop, the committee judged it prudent to maintain the current policy stance at today's meeting. i will come back to our policy decision momentarily, but first let me review recent economic developments and the outlook. the labor market continues to strengthen. over the most recent three months, job gains averaged nearly 230,000 per month,

similar to the pace experienced over the past year. the unemployment rate was 4.9% in the first two months of the year, about in line with the median of fomc participants' estimates of its longer-run normal level. a broader measure of unemployment that includes 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 has continued to improve. of note, the labor force participation rate has turned up noticeably since the fall, with more people working or actively looking for work as the prospects for finding jobs have improved. but there is still room for improvement. involuntary part-time employment remains somewhat elevated, and wage growth has yet to show a sustained pickup.

the improvement in employment conditions so far this year has occurred as economic growth appears to have picked up from the modest pace seen in the fourth quarter of last year. household spending is expanding at a moderate rate, supported by continued job gains and increases in inflation-adjusted incomes. in contrast, business investment has been weak, in part reflecting further reductions in oil drilling as a result of low oil prices. net exports also remain soft as a consequence of subdued foreign growth and the earlier appreciation of the dollar. looking ahead, the committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will continue to expand at a moderate pace and labor market indicators will continue to strengthen.

ongoing economic growth and additional strengthening in labor market conditions are important factors underpinning the inflation outlook. overall consumer price inflation -- as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures -- stepped up to 1 1/4 percent over the 12 months ending in january, as the sharp decline in energy prices around the end of 2014 dropped out of the year-over-year figures. core inflation, which excludes energy and food prices, has also picked up, although it remains to be seen if this firming will be sustained. in particular, the earlier declines in energy prices and appreciation of the dollar could well continue to weigh on overall consumer prices. but once these transitory

influences fade, and as the labor market strengthens further, the committee expects inflation to rise to 2 percent over the next two to three years. the committee's inflation outlook rests importantly on its judgment that longer-run inflation expectations remain reasonably well anchored. however, the stability of longer-run inflation expectations cannot be taken for granted. survey-based measures of longer-run inflation expectations are little changed, on balance, in recent months although some remain near march historically low levels. market-based measures of inflation compensation also remain low. movements in these indicators reflect many factors and therefore may not provide an accurate reading on changes in the inflation expectations that are most relevant for wage and price setting.

nonetheless, our statement continues to emphasize that, in considering future policy decisions, we will carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward our inflation goal. this general assessment of the outlook is reflected in the individual economic projections submitted for this meeting by fomc participants. as always, each participant's projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy, which, in turn, depends on each person's assessment of the multitude of factors that shape the outlook. participants' projections for growth of inflation-adjusted gross domestic product or gdp are just a touch lower than the projections made in conjunction with the december fomc meeting. the median growth projection

edges down from 2.2% this year to 2% in 2018, in line with its estimated longer-run rate. the median projection for the unemployment rate falls from 4.7 at the end of this year to 4.5 % at the end of 2018, somewhat below the median assessment of the longer-run normal unemployment rate. the median path of the unemployment rate is a little lower than in december, in part reflecting a slightly lower median estimate of the longer-run normal unemployment rate. finally, with the transitory factors holding down inflation expected to abate and labor market conditions anticipated to strengthen further, the median inflation projection rises from one point two percent this year

to 1.9 percent next year and 2 percent in 2018. the median inflation projection for this year is a little lower than in december, but thereafter the median projections are unchanged. since the turn of the year, concerns about global economic prospects have led to increased financial market volatility and somewhat tighter financial conditions in the united states, although financial conditions have improved notably more recently. in addition, economic growth abroad appears to be running at a somewhat softer pace than previously expected. these unanticipated developments, however, have not resulted in material changes to the committee's baseline outlook. one reason for this is that market expectations for the path of policy interest rates have moved down, and the accompanying

decline in longer-term interest rates should help cushion any possible adverse effects on domestic economic activity. indeed, while stock prices have fallen slightly since the december meeting and spreads of investment-grade corporate bond yields over those on comparable-maturity treasury securities have risen, mortgage rates and corporate borrowing costs have moved lower. of course, the committee will continue to monitor these developments closely and will adjust the stance of monetary policy as needed to foster our goals of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. returning to monetary policy, as i noted earlier, the committee decided to maintain its target range for the federal funds rate. this decision partly reflects the implications for the u.s.

economy of the global economic and financial developments i just mentioned. in addition, proceeding cautiously in removing policy accommodation at this time will allow us to verify that the labor market is continuing to strengthen despite the risks from abroad. such caution is appropriate given that short-term interest rates are still near zero, which means that monetary policy has greater scope to respond to upside than to downside changes in the outlook. as we indicated in our statement, the committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate. the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. this expectation is consistent

with the view that the neutral nominal federal funds rate --defined as the value of the federal funds rate that would be neither expansionary nor contractionary if the economy was operating near potential -- is currently low by historical standards and is likely to rise only gradually over time. the low level of the neutral federal funds rate may be partially attributable to a range of persistent economic headwinds that weigh on aggregate demand, including developments abroad, a subdued pace of household formation, and meager productivity growth. there is considerable uncertainty regarding the evolution of the neutral funds rate over time. however, if these headwinds abate, as we expect, the neutral federal funds rate should gradually move higher as well. this view is implicitly reflected in participants'

projections of appropriate monetary policy. the median projection for the federal funds rate rises only gradually to 0.9 percent late this year and 1.9 percent next year. as the factors restraining economic growth are projected to fade further over time, the median rate rises to 3 percent by the end of 2018, close to its longer-run normal level. compared with the projections made in december, the median path is about 1/2 percentage point lower this year and next. the median longer-run normal federal funds rate has been revised down as well. in other words, most committee participants now expect that achieving economic outcomes similar to those anticipated in december will likely require a

somewhat lower path for policy interest rates than foreseen at that time. i would like to underscore, however, that the participants' projections for the federal funds rate, including the median path, are not a plan for future policy. policy is not on a pre-set course. these forecasts represent participants' individual assessments of what appropriate policy would be given each person's own current projections of the most likely outcomes for economic growth, employment, inflation, and other factors. however, considerable uncertainty attaches to each participant's forecasts of economic outcomes. hence, their assessments of appropriate policy are also uncertain and will change in response to adjustments to the

economic outlook and associated risks, as was the case between december and now. also, it is important to note that the committee makes its decisions on a meeting-by-meeting basis and does not and need not decide on a likely future path for the federal funds rate. indeed, the future path of policy is necessarily uncertain because the economy will surely evolve in unexpected ways. as we note in our statement, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data. finally, the committee will continue its policy of reinvesting proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. as highlighted in our policy statement, we anticipate continuing this policy until normalization of the level of

the federal funds rate is well under way. maintaining our sizable holdings of longer-term securities should help maintain accommodative financial conditions and should reduce the risk that we might have to lower the federal funds rate to zero in the event of a future large adverse shock. thank you, and i'll be happy to take your questions. know,am chair, as you inflation has gone up the last two months. we had another strong jobs report. the tracking forecast for gdp was 2%. and yet the fed stands pat in what it calls a process of normalization. does the fed have a credibility problem in that it says it will

do something and not do it? and if the current conditions are not sufficient for the fed to raise rates, what with those conditions look like? letyellen: yelp me start -- me start with the question of the fed's credibility purity you used the word promises. as i try to emphasize in my opening statement, the paths participants project for the federal funds rate and how it will of all are not a preset plan. the median should not be interpreted as a committee endorsed forecast. there is a lot of uncertainty around each participant's projection.

they will of all. assessments are completely contingent on each participant's forecast of the economy and how economic events will unfold. they are, of course, uncertain. forecasts forect the appropriate path of policy on the path of participants will shocks,ver time as positive or negative, evolve. you have seen a shift. as i tried to indicate, i think that largely reflects a somewhat slower projected path for global

growth. growth in the global economy outside the united states. tightening in credit conditions in the form of an increase in spreads. those changes in financial and the path of the global economy have induced changes in the assessment of whatidual participants in path is appropriate to achieve our objectives. that is what you see. now, i guessed you asked me also, what would we need to see to continue raising rates. i think it is worth pointing out committeethe participants continue to envision if economic developments unfold as they expect, further increases in the

federal funds rate will prove appropriate over time. most participants anticipate that. the pace will be gradual. as i emphasized, most empirical whatattempting to assess the equilibrium level of the fed funds rate is, a level that would be neither expansionary those levelsr he, are low at this time. that expect over time neutral rate to move up, but we are not positive what the pace of change of that will be over time. economy ishat the now close to our maximum employment objective, hopefully inflation is moving up.

as you mentioned, recent readings on inflation have moved up. i want to warn that there may be some transitory factors. that are influencing that. certainly, our projections are for a gradual increase in inflation. committee, at least most participants, continue to expect that if we follow along this course, some further adjustments in the federal funds rate will be appropriate but gradual. sam from financial times. the numbers have been ticking up, as you said. somewhat at least. you said also, we are at the point where we have close to full employment. is there a risk we are heading for an overshoot in inflation? is there a greater tolerance for

a modest overshoot, especially underthe long period of shoots we have been through? ms. yellen: i want to make clear our inflation objective is to percent. we are projecting a move act to 2%. we are not trying to engineer an overshoot of inflation. compensate for past under shoots. we certainly don't seek to overshoot our objective. overshootsshoots and are part of how the economy operates. error tolerance for those is symmetric with respect to under and overshoots. we did take note in the statement of the fact that

inflation has picked up in recent months. i see some of that as having to do with unusually high inflation eadings in categories that tend to be quite volatile without much significance. i am wary and have not yet concluded we have seen any significant uptick that will be lasting in, for example, core inflation. we note, the committee notes, as it did in the somber that we continue to monitor development it did in december that we continue to monitor development trends. that includes the fact that readings have been on the high side. readings on measures of in somen compensation

survey measures have been on the low side. that sense, there are risks around the inflation forecast in both branches. your statement did note that inflation has picked up in recent months. you still do see it going back to 2% over the medium-term. and yet, policymakers have downgraded gdp growth forecasts for the year. that would indicate a weakening economic environment. i am wondering how in that environment you justify the possibility of two rate hikes. ms. yellen: there has been a slight downgrading of the assessment of economic growth for this year, but none the less growth is expected to run somewhat in excess of potential

so that the labor market is expected to continue to tighten. by the end of the year, even edge below levels of the unemployment rate that are estimated to be longer in the normal run. is -- andlation inflation is expected to move back to 2% over time. we have, wayne on inflation, the influence of earlier declines in prices and a prolonged effect on the depreciation of the dollar. we expect those transitory influences to fade and with continuing improvement in the labor market, i think we will see upward pressure on inflation.

that context, the committee sees it appropriate, if things way, to havet further increases in the federal funds rate. it remains accommodateive. as the committee indicated in december, we want inflation to go back to 2%. we want to be careful not to see some significant overshoots so we get behind the curve. potentially be faced with a need to tighten in a rapid fashion later in a way that could ofermine the sustainability the employment gains we have seen. we have seen continued tightening in monetary policy to be appropriate. >> peter barnes of fox business. could you get more specific

about the global and economic developments that pose risks to the economy? you mention the strong dollar and slowing global growth. are you specifically concerned about china, the emerging markets, and the eu? could you expand on the risks? by yellen: there has been, many forecasters, slight downgrading of forecasts for global growth over the several years. the imf and other international agencies have downgraded their estimates. chinese growth has not proven a great surprise. we have anticipated it would slow over time and it seems to be slowing as well. growth in the fourth quarter was negative. that was something of a surprise

. with respect to the ural area -- recent indicators suggest slightly slower growth. we are suffering under the weight of declines in oil our neighbors, both to the north and south, canada and mexico, are feeling the impact of lower oil prices on their growth. so, our projection for global growth for those reasons is slightly lower -- not dramatically lower -- but enough glowing to make some difference to our forecast. as i indicated, i think that part of the reason, along with the associated increase we have seen in spreads that are involved in corporate borrowing

rates, and can affect investment decisions, it is a reason to think that a slightly lower path to the federal funds rate will be appropriate to achieve our objectives. what you see here is a virtually unchanged path of economic projections, and a slightly more accommodative pass that most -- path that most participants are going down to achieve that. >> thank you. madam chair, you have emphasized repeatedly that every meeting is a live meeting. is it possible you could get enough information between now meeting, for the next to get you comfortable at the raising rates again in april? what would you need to see? chair yellen: i will say again

that every meeting is a live meeting. live remains alive --a meeting, and we will be tracking incoming data. there will be additional data on the labor market, and on various factors that pertain to inflation. a live certainly possibility. two questions. the allele -- lower oil prices, a lot of people expected to leave more consumer spending. how do you see and how do you explain that it has not worked out as well then what people expected? also, if oil prices were to pop back up, what impact would that have on inflation?

would you be paying more in -- attention to the overall inflation rate, or would you be core rate toe determine what the fed's policy would be? start withn: let me the impact of oil prices on consumer spending. i have to say, it is very difficult when you look at patterns of consumer spending, since there are many factors that influence it. to definitively say that lower oil prices have not boosted consumer spending, i'm not sure we can really arrive at that conclusion in any rigorous way. the average household in the united states, with oil prices where they are now, it's probably benefiting around $1000 a year. and some very detailed micro-data that i had seen on

household spending patterns s that there may be a link, as you mentioned, from reduced demands that people pay at the pump, to other spending like eating out at restaurants and other things. data is not aste strong in spending as it could be, given the decline. and of course on the other side -- it will maybe take a while, and it is something that we will slowly strengthen overtime, if -- prices stay low. on the other side, we have seen a marked decline in oil drilling activity, which is a depressed expending, and substantial layoffs in the energy sector. impact on oilo

prices on inflation and what would happen if they move up, the committee has generally tended to look through movements in the oil prices, whether they were on the upside or the a factor viewing it as that should have a transitory influence. when i say that, what i mean is that, if oil prices move up during the time it is moving up, it raises inflation. but they don't need to move down forn to the previous levels that influence to disappear. they only need to stabilize at a higher level. similarly, oil prices have obviously moved down a great deal over the last year. we are not expecting them to move back to their previous levels, but to stabilize it

some, they are obviously volatile -- but as they stabilize, the influence will move out of both headline inflation and, that is what you see in the forecasts of participants. if oil prices were to increase to around $50, that would probably slightly move up our th for core inflation. i would not think it would be something alone that would have great policy significance. you said in the policy statement in december that the workto the outlook balance, and you raised rates.

that phrasing disappeared in january and march. could you talk a little bit about that? in your comments today you seem to be indicating that not much has changed. could you help us understand what needs to happen to get back to balance, and is that the language we need to look forward to see the next rate hike? chair yellen: let me say that in recent weeks, i think the committee certainly thinks that risks to the outlook have diminished. nevertheless, we continue to risks, which see we have highlighted. i would point out that we decided not to describe the balance of risks as weighted to the downside, so the committee did not reach that judgment. there is no collective judgment in this statement on whether the risks are balanced or not.

we declined to make a collective assessment. my guess is that some participants see them as balanced, and some see them as weighted somewhat to the downside. but i think it is important to note a couple of things. first of all, the u.s. economy has been very resilient in recent months, in the face of costs -- shocks. we highlight that right at the beginning of our statement, where he say that economic activity has been expanding at a despite thee, global economic and financial developments of recent months. that is important that the u.s. economy continues to do well. while, i would say that global developments do post some downside risks, the risks are not all one-sided. a number of countries, including china, the euro area, the bank of japan, have taken measures to

stimulate the economy, so there is also outside risk to the economic outlook. in addition, oil prices have rebounded from their lows, and that eases concerns about the financial condition of some energy firms, and the stresses facing some oil-producing economies, and at the same time, oil prices continue to boost household purchasing power. so there are risks. we are attended to them. we have not described them as andlanced to the downside, they are two-sided. one can identify both of light and downside risks -- both upside and downside risks here. wage growth so far has been disappointed. it has been very uneven. disappointing figures in last month's jobs report. why'd you think that is, and how

important is sustained wage growth to removing your wariness on inflation? chair yellen: i must say, i do see broad improvement in the labor market, and i'm somewhat surprised that we are not seeing more of a pickup in wage growth. say, in anecdotal arports, we do here -- he quite a number of reports of firms facing wage pressures and broad-based, slightly faster , wageses in wages increases that they are granting. but in the aggregate data, we don't see increasing evidence of a pickup in wage growth. it is mainly isolated to certain sectors and occupations. so i do think consistent with a thatflation objective,

there is certainly scope for further increases in wages. the fact that we have not seen any broad-based pickups is one of the factors that suggests to me that there is continued slack in the labor market. but i would expect wage growth to move up some. yellen, numerous polls show that the u.s. economy is american voters' number one concern. there is a lot of negative sentiment about the economy. unemployment is low, job gains have been pretty good over the and consumer confidence has picked up. why is there disparity between the progress between the economy, and how voters feel? my second question is how does any negative sentiment of the economy factor into your economic outlook and the

decisions you make? chair yellen: let me start with your second question, if i might. in trying to judge the outlook for the economy, we do look at measures pertaining to consumer sentiment, and they are in solid territory. household balance sheets are much improved. gains in inflation-adjusted disposable income are running at a healthy pace. as i mentioned, households have benefited pretty significantly from lower oil prices, and measures of consumer sentiment do reflect that. they are not at low levels. really, the labor market, i think, has improved a great deal. wery demographic group that tracked regularly has seen improvements in their labor market situation.

all equally, but almost all demographic groups have seen improvements. i think it is right to say the economy is improving, and most groups are seeing benefits. that said, we know that inequality has been rising in the united states over many years, not just the last several, but going back to the mid-80's. there has been downward pressure gains for groups, particularly those that are less educated, and those longer-term trends may be associated with a number of factors. technological change, globalization have been a concern for many years.

that may be part of what we are seeing expressed. thank you. chair yellen, there seems to be growing sentiment that even if the direct and that's economic ties between the u.s. and either -- other economies are still relatively modest, that the impact through financial markets and exchange rate has become more robust. because of that, it is becoming more difficult, or will become more difficult, for the fed to diverge from other major central market interest rates. would you generally agree with that sentiment? why, or why not? and if i may, in your mind, does --undermined in any way undermined in any way the standing of the federal reserve as a nonpartisan institution

when one of the members contributes to a major campaign? chair yellen: pertaining to exchange rates, we have global capital markets. in a world with highly integrated capital markets, monetary policy actions in any andtry have effects, spillovers to other countries. that is true of our monetary policy, and through of other countries as well. in part, that shows up through movements and exchange rates, and those movements are a factor that any country needs to take into account in deciding what is the appropriate stance of monetary policy. the fact that there are these is an important factor

in designing and monetary policy. but it does not mean that monetaryu.s. -- u.s. policy is somehow constrained in a way that makes it impossible for our monetary policy to diverge from policies abroad. when are many periods monetary policies in different countries have moved in and thet directions, united states has been growing more strongly, and has better success in the labor market than many other advanced countries. at this point, it is natural that there should be some divergence in our monetary policies. exchange rates partly reflect that. i would not want to endorse the notion that if you are suggesting that our policy is in some way crippled by the fact

that there are these inter-linkages that simply have a global financial system. this is one reason we meet frequently with other economic policymakers in other countries, exchange notes about how we see economic developments involve, -- he bought, and try to keep economicer apprised of developments and policy responses. concerning question contributions. i want to start by saying that i have been involved for many years in the federal reserve system, and we are a nonpartisan, independent institution, devoted to pursuing our congressionally mandated objectives, and i have never -- politicalcal

views in any way influence the policy judgments made inside the federal reserve. i want to say that emphatically. the political activities of governors, participants, government employees, are governed by the hatch act. we are all subject to that. the act does allow campaign contributions to be made. it outlaws other forms of partisan activity, and i would it is up tohat, each individual to decide what is appropriate in their point of view. but the federal reserve is not a partisan political organization.

the policy projections appear to reflect an increase in the extent of labor market slack. you talked about one possible reason, which is the softness of wage growth. are there other considerations that have led you to increase your estimate of how much slack there is in the labor market? chair yellen: i should point out that i think what you are talking about is the slight decline in the median estimate of the longer run normal unemployment rate, is that -- [inaudible] be --yellen: the pass may that reflects for those who brought it down, and estimate of

greater slack in the labor market. the fed funds rate projection is also at that, it is reflection of ships in -- shifts in other views, for example, the likely pace of global growth that reflects what we need as a policy path to achieve our objectives. of wageslow pace growth, the fact that part-time employment for economic reasons, and voluntary part-time employment, remains high. we have seen an upward move in labor force participation, which is heartening, and suggests there was scope therefore further improvement in the labor market. my guess is that those things who wrote individuals down a slightly lower number for the long-term unemployment rate.

we have heard a lot about president obama's pick for the supreme court today, but there are a number of vacancies on the fed board of governors, and there is a new position, the vice chair for supervision, that the president has not even nominated anyone or. would you like -- four. would you like the president to nominate someone, and what effects i don't vacancies having on the fed? chair yellen: i think congress made for the board to have seven members, and that tends to bring on board people with a wide spectrum of views and experience and perspectives. i think that is valuable, and i would like to see the senate move forward, and consider these nominees, so that we could operate with the full

complement. with respect to the nomination for vice chair of supervision, that is a question that i think you need to post to the white pose to the white house. i would say we are doing a very good job on supervision, and we are very focused on it, and devote a great deal of time to that issue. so really, is a nomination question, it is one for the white house. >> thank you, madam chair. the president, last week, expressed concern about what he termed cynicism on both sides of the aisle concerning progress made since the crisis to reform the banking sector and financial sector, more generally. do you share that concern about public attitudes, that either not enough has been done, or what has been done has not been affected in changing the

regulatory landscape in banking? what are your thoughts? chair yellen: i feel a great deal has been done. this foreen working at a number of years, and i believe we have made very substantial progress. capital, much more higher-quality capital, liquidity in the banking system, our supervision -- we have made very meaningful changes in our supervision. for example, the stress test methodology that we use routinely to evaluate the robustness of the capital positions and plans of the largest institutions constitutes a quantum leap in terms of, i think, the quality of the supervision we are providing,

especially of the largest firms. so, we have finished writing most of the dodd frank rules. we are working very hard on too big to fail, which is of great concern to the american people. in addition to having a financial system that is more robust, and less likely to , we havee a failure also worked very hard and continued to work on making sure we had the ability to resolve a firm, if it were to fail in spite of having more capital and liquidity. i think we have made very substantial progress. a month or so ago, we came out would requireat the largest firms to hold a substantial buffer of long-term debt, that in the event that

they were to fail, could be bailed into protect the taxpayer burden,ing to bear any in terms of injecting capital into the firms. it would provide loss absorption in that event. jointly, closely with firms have made a great deal of progress with their living wills. we are in the process of evaluating the most recent submissions. fdic, working with the and there are potential techniques that could be used in the event of a failure of a significant financial institution. we have also made a lot of progress there. i was at the meeting of financial regulators with the president, when he made those comments. i understood what he was trying to tell the american people, that they should understand who

really has been -- there really has been very substantial progress, and that is something they should be aware of. but do you think that despite all that progress, why hasn't or why haven't these improvements made its way to the public? and perhaps, do you find that is an obstacle, either among people that you meet, people in the public, or their representatives in congress that maybe have a pervasive view that nothing has changed? is that a problem? chair yellen: i think it is our job as we make these what weents, to explain are doing, and to try to educate the public about what happened, and they may not understand how much has changed. owns certainly part of my responsibility to try to explain that to the american people.

in the sep today, the unemployment rate forecast for for 2017-2018 was marked down without changes to inflation. there seems to be growing debate about the relationship between higher -- lower unemployment and higher inflation. what is your view about the strength of this relationship, the phillips curve, and how does that view way into how actual anticipatedrsus inflation you will need to see? chair yellen: that was a complicated question. let me start with the phillips curve. posits that curve there is a relationship between the degree of slack in the labor market and inflation. it is an empirical relationship

that, while not absolutely tight, has been a consistent relationship over time. i believe that relationship still holds. shifts in the of unemployment rate, on inflation should not be overstated. the phillips curve has become, according to most estimates, quite flat in the sense that movements in an appointment -- in unemployment have only a modest impact on inflation, so we shouldn't over blow how large that is. in addition, the phillips curve theory suggests that inflation expectations are also an important driver of actual wage and price setting decisions, and inflation behavior, and i believe there is also solid empirical evidence for that. it is one of the reasons that i

highlighted in my statement, and we continue to highlight in the fomc statement, that we are tracking indicators of the inflation expectations that matter to wage and price setting. unfortunately, we don't have a perfect measure of these things. we have survey measures. measures,at household even one household address longer-term inflation, longer-term inflation -- they tend to move in response to salient changes in prices that they see every day. in particular, when gas prices go down, which is very -- toable to the most most households. responses about long-term inflation marked down.

it is an over-response. it is difficult to get a clear read from those survey measures. compensation is measured in financial markets, also embodies, a variety of premium and liquidity premia. it is monitored closely, and discussed in paragraph one. again, there is not a straight to the what is happening expectations that influence wage and price setting. but this model continues to at .east influence my own thinking and certainly is a factor of that some of my colleagues are incorporating in these projections. eric shatzer,

"bloomberg television." notwithstanding what the docs tell us about rate expectations, has there been any discussion among members of the committee, about the potential need for further stimulus? and even if there has not been such a discussion yet, could you share with us what you have learned from the reevaluation of negative interest rates, what you consider negative interest rates effective, how effective relative to quantitative easing, and whether the committee would hypothetically use them, instead in case the economy should warn for the stimulus? chair yellen: what i want to make clear, this is not actively a subject we are considering or discussing. the committee continues to feel we are on a course where the economy is improving and inflation is moving back up. , if eventsndicated

continue to unfold in that way, we are likely to gradually raise rates over time. again, that is not fixed in stone. we will watch how the economy behaves. as -- prepared to respond if things transpire differently. but we are not actively debating things we could do for additional accommodation. and certainly not actively considering negative rates area we are looking at the experience in other countries, and i guess there are mixed effects in some parts, and some negative things. but look, if we found ourselves in the unlikely situation where we needed to add accommodations, we have a range of tools. we know from the things we did in the past, that we have a

number of options with respect to the maturity worried for example, of our portfolios, exit purchases, forward guidance, made available to us. those are tools we could turn to in the unlikely event we need to add accommodations. negative rates are not something we are actively considering. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. at 8:15 eastern, a book discussion with city university of new york professor douglas rushkoff, author of " throwing rocks at the google buzz." canalks about how americans grow businesses to benefit employees and employers. p.m., "afterwards,"

with the coeditor of "liberty's nemesis." they examined residential power during the obama administration. he is interviewed by the former deputy experience -- attorney general. >> it seems obvious the president cannot regulate the money. -- since you have a right to free speech, as you said in politics, it is when they want someone to write his speech. spendey say, you can't money on a speech, using your constitutional right. >> on sunday night at 8:00 eastern, former first lady laura bush chronicles the life of afghan women since the u.s. invasion, in the book "we are afghan women." mrs. bush wrote the introduction to the book, which was put out by the george w. bush institute. go to our website for the full we can schedule. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] history tvamerican on saturday for live all day coverage of the link in the lincoln symposium from ford theater in washington, d.c.. eastern,at 9:00 p.m. sidney blumenthal, author of "a self-made man." medford, author of "lincoln and emancipation." and the author of "lincoln's last speech." author of "lincoln fool,"" and "fortunes the life of john wilkes booth. live coverage saturday from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern. >> in his congressional testimony tuesday, the head of

the secret service, joseph clancy, talked how is institution protects presidential candidates and handles protesters at campaign events. -- holding aping committee about the budget. john carter chairs this one hour 20 minutes hearing. >> good morning everybody. hello start off by saying , i am cursed by allergy attacks right now. that may sound like i am either dying or escaped from a tuberculosis isolation, but i am not contagious. i am just congested.

please forgive me for that. allergies, they settle in my bronchial tubes. anyway, if you live as long as i have come a something stay with you for a while. i want to call this to order and thank all of you for being here. joe clancy, the director of the united states secret service. the second appearance before the subcommittee. mr. clancy, thank you. we appreciate for your service. we appreciate you. before i begin, i want to take a moment to remember former congressman martin who passed away at his home in the state of minnesota. congress,28 years in two years as the ranking member of the subcommittee. please remember his friends and family in your plans.

i commend you and the secret service for successfully, and most important, safely, completing multiple national september.tails last since it overlapped when the pope visited washington . at the same time, the united when i just 52 heads of state in new york. it was truly a whole government response. thank you to everyone, very well done. took responsibility very seriously, and we are very proud of you. that is why we always like to have the secret service. 2017 budget,ear $1.9 billion. , largely due to the

close of 2016 presidential campaign. i am pleased to see continued investment in communications, including a long needed and techent in radios systems, chemical, biological detection systems, upgrades to the white house protective structure. you have tackled many challenges over the last year, i remain concerned about the rate of hiring. and associated attrition. it is forcing unsustainable over time. know, a few weeks ago, you and i discussed a new agent career path we instituted last summer, to improve morale. however, your budget undercuts , 130%.gram

i look forward to hearing from you, what you're doing to address these continuing challenges. before i turn you over to make your opening statement, i would like to recognize some remarks. i too wouldllard: like to take a moment to make my condolences to mark -- martin's family. he was a tireless advocate for minnesota and the people of our country. we have lost a truly remarkable person and i am saddened by his passing. i hope his family and the people of minnesota will find comfort in the legacy built and in the foundation he built for members of the subcommittee and for his state. director clancy, welcome to this morning's hearing.

i know the past few years have been challenging for the secret service. but i'm very hopefully you have now turned a corner. i am putting the agency back on the right track. the incidents that have brought negative attention to the agency , the secret service faces significant operational challenges last september. when it provided protection to both businesses and the united nations general assembly while also preparing for the beginning of the presidential nomination and transition process. accounts, the secret service performed admirably, and i congratulate you, your secret staff, and all the men and women of the secret service on a job well done. i understand a number of tsa and ice personnel pitched in, so s unity truly a dh initiative. other tests will be the nuclear summit coming up at the end of

march, the ongoing presidential nomination contest, and the presidential transition next january. year, you began providing protection for three presidential candidates, in addition to protection already provided to hillary clinton as a former first lady. you will ber, protecting the nominated candidates and shortly after that, setting up president obama's post-presidency protective detail. since the protective mission panel issued its report, the secret service has made a number of projected changes, including improvements to the hiring process to both officers and agents. as we discussed, officer attrition continues to be a real problem. thank you for joining us this morning, i look forward to you about the progress you see at the agency. areas you hope to address during the last year of the

ministration, and how the fy 17 budget request can continue moving in the right direction. mrs. chairman, before i turned for director, i would like to talk about my colleague martin sable. fondly as aim very wonderful man, wonderful colleague. mr. price: a devoted member of this institution. he first entered public life at the ripe age of 22 i believe, when he was elected to the minnesota house. he later served as the speaker of minnesota house and succeeded in the u.s. house of representatives. martin was a well established accomplish member by the time i got here in the 1980's. he served as chairman of the and thenget committee,

was the inaugural ranking member of this subcommittee, he had offered leadership on appropriations and a number of areas, most notably, transportation. when this subcommittee was first formed, martin took on the leading democratic role on the subcommittee, and that is where i served most closely with him. i learned a great deal from what thewe figured out homeland security subcommittee was all about and what this new department was all about. as the undertook that post-9/11 reorganization here in the house. sadness andeal great fond memories that we received news of martin's death. the first is subcommittee since that has occurred, i think it is appropriate that all of us pause to remember him and his service to our country. thank you mr. chairman.

>> anyone else want to comment? director clancy, we have your written submission. we are ready to hear from you. we give the floor to you. mr. clancy: thank you mr. chairman. good morning chairman carter, thank you members, and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored to join you to discuss the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the secret service. this budget build on the investments made over the past two years. it moves our agency forward, and strengthens our capabilities to carry out priority missions of protecting the president in the white house. the fiscal year 2017 budget will continue to advance initiatives centered on increased staffing and training, as well as enhancements to technology and infrastructure that directly support our frontline personnel. these investments are important contributors to our operational success during ultimately, is

the dedication and professionalism of our people that ensures our success as an agency. i am how to them and what we are complicated together every day. the fiscal year 2017 for the secret service totals $1.9 billion. this is roughly 42 million below the active level. due to the drawdown of the presidential campaign operations. program increases proposed in the budget will allow us to complete the two year effort to upgrade the radios and associated infrastructure at the white house context. other enhancements include ongoing work to replace aging officer booths and security state. classified protective countermeasures that include known and emerging threats. in addition to these increases, the budget provides funding for the final months of the presidential campaign activities, and will sustain the cost associated with the establishment of the former

presidential protective division for president obama, to ensure a smooth transition on january 20, service isecret focused on our human capital needs across the organization. staffing appropriate levels will use over time demand on individual employees and further increase training opportunities. in fiscal year 2015, the agency hired 500 new employees. 2016, we arer building on this momentum as we work to meet our goal of hiring over 860 employees. in fiscal year 2017, we will continue to maximize our hiring efforts as a work to keep pace with our five-year, human capital plan. and to fill recommendations made. as we work to meet our hiring goals, it is critical we recruit the highest quality candidates. 2015, more than 2100 recruits representing 96 organizations attended the federal law

enforcement training center. only eight received the prestigious honor of graduate award. i am proud to say, four of these recipients were secret service recruits. as impressive as this achievement is, i am especially proud that one of our spacious on theial agent trainees title of honor graduate of the year. i congratulate these individuals for their achievements, and could not be more optimistic about our future, when i see the people of this caliber joining our ranks. hase the secret service made significant progress in meeting our hiring goals, we have yet to see the desired impact on our overall staffing increasede to attrition. in order to maximize our hiring, we have to turn considerable attention to the retention of our existing workforce. we have begun retention initiatives available to us within our existing authority. we are pursuing several options for more comprehensive retention initiatives.

every presidential campaign increases the tempo of the secret service. this year, a number of national ranks, and overseas protector travel have increased the tempo even further. temponcreased operational highlights important points. number one, the success of these events is dependent on more than just those agents and officers assigned permanent details. the majority of the staffing and advanced planning required to fulfill the mission is a result of special agents and support staff working in field offices around the world. hiring and retention initiatives are especially critical this year, so our employees across agency can begin to see the benefits of increased staffing levels. with respect to the president campaign, candidate protection details are currently in place for secretary clinton, donald trump, and senator bernie sanders. work is already underway for

months to establish the security plan for the nominating conventions which will take place later this summer. the budgetear 2017, provides $72 million for presidential campaign at these. this includes protection costs to the nominees and their families, through the general election. running for the protection of the president-elect and vice president-elect, and their immediate family during the transition. and funny to secure the 58 presidential inauguration associated events. 2016 move further into the campaign cycle, i recognize that next year remains challenging. as our personal continue to meet the considerable demands of the mission, my leadership team will support them by building on last years of staffing and retention initiatives. we will continue to advance a component of our success, and aggressively pursue the equipment and technology reflective of an elite organization. and ensure our employees and the full necessary to provide them every advantage.

through the dedication and sacrifice his of employees around the world, the secret service has built momentum at a time when the demand of the mission are at its highest. i ask for the committee's support to this budget, will continue its momentum at a critical time in our agencies is read. takelose, i would like to a moment to extend our condolences to the reagan family on the passing of former first lady, nancy reagan. protecting the president and first family is an honor unique to the secret service. over the course of 35 years, many fine people served president and mrs. reagan with honor and distinction. i salute them all, past and present. and i think the reagan family for this privilege. jeffrey carter, ranking members, thank you once again for the opportunity to beer to represent the men and women of the secret service. i will be happy to answer any questions you and the members of the committee may have. thank you, director.

we will try to stick to five minutes, but we will have some flexibility. right to something you mentioned in the conversation we started. onen the amount of overtime the present detail on campaigns ,ithin the uniformed division and additional agents and officers. our own human capital plan are unique. they say you will need 7600 people by 2019, and increased over your current 6287. however, your budget only request 6072 positions.

is that number obtainable in they needhe fact that more agents and they have brought on board? in the last 40 months you have lost 19 positions. can you truly bring on 427 people by the innocent cover? -- how are they ensuring the quality of the officers required? lastly, is it truly the requirement of the secret service? if so, your future budget continues to build on this number. is that correct? onlyw that fy-17's number increases by 58. 6 none of those were special agents, but supports that. could you going to detail on that? yes, thank you mr.

chairman. when i came in over a year ago, i have three priorities. staffing, training, and morale. the number one priority here is staffing. we had retooled the way we go about hiring people. we condense the time without lowering the quality of candidates that we get, to bring in more people, new employees. the way we dod business at human resources. 15, we hired a proximally 200 agents, and approximately 140 professional staff people. in our first year, we have done significant hiring. we will continue to build on that momentum during we are confident in the fiscal year 16, we will reach our goals of hiring three to 12 agents, three to 12 officers, and over 260 professional staff.

the big issue for us, is retention. we are losing a lot of folks. uniformition rates for division is 8%. for our agent population, 7%. and for our professional staff, 8%. we are losing good people. when you think of the time we spend training these people and the time given for the experience they need, we need to find ways to keep them. one retention initiative, which we felt was within our authority working with homeland security, to provide a bonus for uniformed officers. it is a two year plan, hopefully stayaces that they will when we have this campaign going on. over 1000 of our uniformed division officers assigned up for that.

initiatives one the table that we are looking at within our authority. as an example, we are hoping to push out this month tuition-reimbursement initiatives. also, tuition assistance initiative. that is within our authority, things we can do to entice our people to stay with us, rather than move on to other agencies or opportunities. -- other be an initial initiatives we may look at further. mr. carter: is your chief financial officer looking at the costs of those things? ideas, i can understand that. but we can't have any shortfalls. we have shortfalls to deal with right now. i have the chief

financial officer with me today. she was newly appointed to this position, within the last year. in the past, and i may get into this later, in the past we have had agents in a lot of these positions, and they will be moving more into running this agency as a business. we have brought in the chief financial officer, that is her expertise. mr. carter: that is a good idea. we are joined by the chairman of the whole committee. statement.ing >> thank you mr. chairman, i apologize for being late. but i have three simultaneous hearings that i have to be at. i want to echo the sentiments exercised by the chairman, ranking member and others, regarding our former

colleague and committee matter -- member, martin sable. he devoted 47 years of his life to public service, 28 of which were in this house, including two years as the first ranking member of this subcommittee. when we started this subcommittee for homeland 2003, martin was ranking member and i was the chairman. beautifully,ether and i think, effectively, for those years. he was a true patriot, a great legislator, former speaker of his own state house, and many other things. my condolences go out to his family. ones, lete and loved them know he will be sorely missed here in his nation's capital.

mr. director, thank you for being here. i want to share my gratitude for the men and women that your agency who serves our great country. many of them put their lives on , putine on a daily basis their families in harms way. the fiscal 2017 request includes $1.89 billion, that is a $42 million decrease from current levels. largely due to the winding down of the presidential campaign. includes $108 billion to increase security at the white house, $27 billion for upgrades, $72 million for continuing security work presidential candidates threat the inauguration. disappointed, to see that it does not include funding for the

national center for missing and exploited children, which is a bipartisan priority for years. fulfilled aervice very critical mission of course, of protection and investigation. your agency is charged with protecting the , the vicein-chief president, the presidential candidates, former heads state, among many others. this past year, you were tasked with protecting the public on the visit throughout the u.s., as well as 160 visiting heads of spouses for the un's general assembly in new york. these were no small task. i want to commend you and all the men and women at your agency for the tremendous job they did. the world was watching, and the secret service did an exemplary job. there is much to praise your agency about, but there have

also been some major missteps in recent years. there seems to be an overarching theme within the secret service, since well before your tenure as director began a short time ago during the number of high profile incidents in the recent past have called many to question the integrity and culture and effectiveness of the agency. unacceptable of misconduct by some of your agents, to major security lapses, changes need to be made in order for the secret service to regain the trust of the american people. while i have to commend you and your agency for being relatively scandal-free since the last time you came before this subcommittee, the bar needs to be set much higher. top,rship starts at the and i trust that you are leveraging your careers work and experience to write the ship at

the secret service. i look forward to hearing from you today on what measures you have put in place over the last year to address these problems at your agency. one particular thing comes to mind. i was recently in south america. in peru. i think it is that counterfeiting capital of the world, is that correct? significant amount of counterfeit coming out of peru, yes. you can get a harvard diploma or a $1000 bill, whatever you want. it seems out will. we have an agent there assigned to our peru office. we have gotten positive feedback from the ambassador there. there are over $10 million fees last year alone. offshoren several

assets close down. they have had a significant effect in peru, getting great support from the ambassadors office at the embassy. well, that is not quite the report i got. i talked to the ambassador and the head of the agency. they are working hard, i give them that. but the problem is so broad. they have an absolute factory for fake dollars. and everything else. i don't think we are putting enough effort in there to stop. this is an assault on the american dollar. you have a lot of critically important missions that safeguard the country's financial infrastructure. you play a vital role in protecting the economy from cybercrime and counterfeiting. year 2015, you made

over 800 arrests and seized almost $60 million in currency before it headed into circulation. you also trained 24 members of the peruvian counterfeiting force, to help them combat this problem. think we are not doing nearly enough, and i sometimes wonder, whether peruvians are not too unhappy. there is a lot of money being circulated in their country before it has caught on to be counterfeiting elsewhere. could you give us a report in the due course of time here on how we can beef up our efforts there? yes sir, we can certainly give you a more detailed briefing. did comeuvian recruits up to our training facility here

and we address their command structure as well. we will take a good look at that and our staff will give you a better briefing. not interestedm in everything, i am interested in action. mr. clancy: yes, sir. mr. rogers: i know what is going on, i just got back. they are all hard-working, and innocent, and trying their best, but it is not enough. mr. clancy: thank you, mr. director. ms. roybal-allard: director clancy, you talked about some of your efforts with regards to firing and retention. report,his 2014 regarding the hiring process, can you elaborate on the status of the filling the other recommendations of the protective missions panel, and if the budget request sufficient

to allow you to make progress on those recommendations? yes, thank you. there were 19 recommendations through the panel. we took them all very seriously, and we are making a lot of progress. we are proud to say we have made a lot of progress in addressing these recommendations. ago, iy, a month or so brought back members of the panel to show them we are taking serious their report. a very well written report. it started with the structure. they talk about an outside perspective with a secret service, a culture, starting -- starving for leadership and management. in the past, we have had a director and deputy director. now, we're looking at running this more like a business, as i said earlier. with our chief operating officer we brought in from the outside

from the department of defense, this gentleman here with me today. ist chief operating officer now overseeing the business aspect of the secret service. we have elevated the chief financial officer. in the past, our finances were overseen by an agent. we brought in the subject matter experts to oversee our finances area we created a new director of the office of strategy and planning to look at our 90 day plan and five-year plan. elevated the subject matter expert, we wanted to get that outside perspective again. we recently hired a chief information officer, a 34 year marine corps brigadier general. he was a cio and the marine corps. we were thrilled to get this gentleman and a short matter of a few months. he made great strides in assessing where we are very and we have strengthened that cio position so we can do a much

better job at our i.t. functions. and we have done other things, structurally. based again on the blue-ribbon panel and their recommendations. training was not where it should be. we have applied more focused to our training. we previously had one directory. we split that so they can both get the training they need. increased 43%. leading up to this campaign we made a commitment to ensure that our details that are protecting these candidates that are out there are well trained. we trained over 940 agents prior to this campaign to ensure that they're set. so the blue ribbon panel, structurally, we made significant changes. much different from a management standpoint than it was years

ago. thanks to funding you provided to radios and infrastructure there is going to be improved. some of the facilities, our training facility will be improved. so we are moving forward with the blue ribbon panel recommendations and i think making a lot of progress. ms. roybal-allard: the secret service has had a difficult couple of years with several incidents of misconduct. my personnel suggest strongly that the culture within the agency had drifted and needed to be changed. the issue has not only been about misconduct but also whether personnel feel confident in coming forward when they become aware of misconduct. for example, do they know how to register their concerns of misconduct? and do they feel confident that their careers will not suffer as a result of speaking out? can you please elaborate on how in your opening, how things are improving and what the signs of progress are that you can point

to and areas where you think more progress needs to be made in this particular area? mr. clancy: primarily through communication, initially. telling our workforce we can't , fix what we don't know. you have to come forward and tell us what issues are out there. we've given them several avenues to do this whether through , ombudsman, through the office of professional responsibility or go to the office of inspector general. any of those avenues, or come to me directly. i have an open door policy. come to me directly and we will look into the misconduct that may or may not be out there and we'll act upon it. but we've also gone out to field offices and we've addressed them. i've addressed them personally. i've gotten every protective detail we have, and addressed them and reiterated the fact that if there's issues out there we need to know about them so we can fix them.

and i think we're making progress. we've heard several responses from our work force where we have taken initiative and gone out to field offices to investigate what they've reported. ms. roybal-allard: just very quickly, in that same area, one of the recommendations was to implement a disciplinary system in a manner that demonstrates zero tolerance for stands incompatible with the zero failure mission. is that being worked on? mr. clancy: yes, the office of professional responsibility, we elevated our integrity officer to an sds position to highlight the importance of integrity within our agency. we've also, through the table penalties, strengthened some of these penalties so that if you're a supervisor and don't report things up, you're subject to discipline, more severe discipline. we've gone back and looked at that. the whole entire table of penalties is under review now to

see if we are where we should be with the discipline process. we're benchmarking against other federal agencies. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman, welcome, director clancy. i recently co-founded a bipartisan caucus, a congressional task force to identity threat -- to combat identity theft and fraud. mr. young: you know the importance of all this, it can happen on the individual scale, a larger scale, affecting corporations, businesses, individuals, public sector, it's something we need to take quite seriously, i know you know that how will the proposed budget assist the secret service? i look particularly at your testimony here about the electronic crimes special agent program and how will the budget assist the secret service to help prevent and investigate cybercrimes and data breaches? and is the need primarily staff

or is it new technologies, that kind of thing that you need? mr. clancy: thank you, congressman. it starts with staffing. our field offices are down considerably at this point because we have had to move a number of our field office agents to a protected mission. what we do have in the field is 37 electronic crimes task forces throughout our country and two overseas in london and in rome. so we take this very seriously, obviously, the cyber crimes that are out there and the identity theft that's out there, but we're also partnering with our local and state law enforcement officials to the point where we also have a national computer forensics institute down in alabama that we train a lot of these law enforcement officials and judges, as well. so they can go back into their communities and use this expertise they've learned and take the equipment we provide for them to work these types of

cases in their communities. mr. young: in your testimony you state the secret service is working with state and local partners on this. can you elaborate on this? and how does the secret service work with other agencies to protect private citizens? and do you review and follow-up investigations to find out shortcomings, successes and needs with real analytics from there? and from there, how can we help you in terms of maybe even authorizing legislation, although we are the appropriations committee? mr. clancy: right now, through the electronic crimes task force that's where we partner with our community, state and local authorities. during this, for example, during this campaign year a lot of folks think our investigations may get pushed to the wayside but the beauty of these electronic crime task forces, where we have a lot working with

us if our agents get pulled out , the door, those cases continue on. they're not dormant, in the being put aside. we continue to work those. we do look at the metrics. our staff can get with yours and give you a better idea of what those metrics are in terms of the number of cases closed in your community, for example, an the amount of arrests made in your community. >> with the new technologies and new scams and hucksters out there, trying to steal identities and commit these frauds, you're seeing this growing? and what are your roots into this community? mr. clancy: you are exactly right. these cyber criminals today run like a business. they don't take the spoils from it theyime and spend , reinvest it in their criminal enterprise. we have to evolve and improve our techniques as well. that's where this continuing education for our investigators and the work with the private sector and try to keep up with

the new technology, we have a representative out at carnegie mellon to study the newest technology out there. we're out at tulsa university studying wireless mobile new technology that's out there we're trying to continue to educate our folks too as we move forward. mr. young: thank you for coming here today, i'm sure our bipartisan task force will take take you up on your offer of briefing and working together. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. carter: mr. price. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, director, we're happy to have you before the subcommittee. i know off lot on your plate this year with the election warming up and the election proving to be very contentious. and that defines what i want to ask you to address today that contentiousness. we had a regrettable example in my congressional district last week, fayetteville, north

carolina. a recent incident at a donald trump rally. in this instance it was reported , that without any physical provocation, a trump supporter allegedly sucker punched, as they say, a man named raquin jones and later said, the next time we see him we might have to kill him. in referencing mr. jones. now there's a lot of inflammatory rhetoric being used on the campaign trail. i would imagine that's making your job and that of your agents more difficult, at a minimum and perhaps more dangerous. so that's what i want to ask you to help us understand here today. to the extent you can in an unclassified setting, can you speak to these challenges faced by your agents and as more and more violent and provocative rhetoric is being used out on the campaign trail, are you seeing an increased number of incidents that you of course

need to protect against but also need to investigate? compared to the 2012 election cycle or any modern election cycle, for that matter. and then this vitriol on the campaign trail, has that led to an increased number of threats against the president or first family question again to the , extent you can comment in this setting. mr. clancy: thank you for the question. in general, i will say that every day is a challenge for us. we talk about this within the ranks, every minute of every day is a challenge for us, whether any of our protectees is at a large rally where there's a lot of passion and intensity, or whether a protectee is going into a coffee shop. every minute of every day, we have to be on our game. and to the question that came earlier, even off duty as well. that's something we're stressing too.

in regards the campaign, it all starts with the events. one of things we talk about events is we are there to protect our protectee. if there are protesters, if there are people that are disrupting the event, that is not our primary responsibility. if it's an an nfse, we're more involved, but for typical campaign events, we sit down with the host committee and event organizer and say, if there is someone you feel is disrupting the event or protesting, it is incumbent on you to make that decision and work with your private security you may have or your university security or the local law enforcement to remove the protester if you think that's warranted. our concern is overt acts or threats to our protectee. if someone come into the buffer zone, or secure zone, we're going to respond to that, as we saw in dayton, ohio, just this past weekend. we also had other rallies where people have crossed into our buffer zone over the bike rack. we will remove those

individuals. we do not interfere with people's first amendment rights. people have the right to voice their opinions. it's for the host committee to decide whether or not it's disruptive to that event. mr. price: surely the environment matters, though. and the cooperation with -- i understand you're saying cooperation with local law enforcement involves deferring to them, mainly, in handling protests and presumably counterprotests. the atmosphere surrounding this, though, surely has some influence on how you assess your mission and the kind of complications you might face in executing your mission is -- and what i'm really asking is not about, i gave you an illustrative instance but i'm

asking you about the environment surrounding this campaign and whether it has posed those kinds of challenges. and if so, what have you undertaken to deal with this? this is not politics as usual, at least in my experience. mr. clancy: each site, again, we are flexible with our security plan and look at all the factors of every event and we are flexible with our assets, we may bring in additional assets if we feel there's more intensity, for example, at a rally. we want to make sure -- we have certain requirements we want to make sure we have available to us. i don't want to get into too much detail here but we want to make sure we have a good, clean route in, as well as a good, clean route out. if we don't feel we can have some of these basic requirements of a good security plan, we may require us to bring in more assets or have more discussions with the staff or local law enforcement but it's -- there's a lot of give and take with all these events and there's no

question some of these events create even more challenges for us. but it is our job to be flexible and resilient and make sure we have a good security plan. your response could conceivably be to advise local law enforcement about precautions and safeguards they need to put in place and you might advise that a rally be canceled or postponed? mr. clancy: we work closely with local law enforcement. one of the beauties of our field offices is we have great relations with the local police departments. for a lot of these rallies and events, our field offices are the ones doing initial advance work. those relationships have been formed and there's a lot of give and take from an intelligence standpoint from what assets are available, it truly is a unity of effort, a team effort.

mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. clancy, i want you to know that many of us support you and we understand that, just culturally as a military officer, i'm supportive of law enforcement. mr. stewart: i recognize you have a difficult job that many times you or your agents rather involved with law enforcement have to make split second decisions that they're going to be criticized after the event. i think the great majority of americans will support you and others working with you, and want to support you. but that only works, i think, if we recognize that that focus on -- that trust is based on behaviors and having people earn that trust. oft is a bit of a concern mine which i would like to elaborate on. going back to quote a government

oversight and reform report from 2015, i'm quoting here, internal u.s.s. data shows morale is further harmed because many employees don't have confidence in agency leadership. they told the committee this is due to culture where leaders not held accountable. i know that was previous to your time or about the same time you came on and that's not a critique of your leadership, this quote i just gave. but i'd like to give an example of accountability and ask you to respond, if you would. i'm not using this example because he's a friend of mine or a member of congress, this is jason chaffetz. i'm using it, i would feel the same way about any u.s. citizen. that was where there was a hisch of some 60 of personal data, 60 different items. including from "the washington

post," some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out is what the assistant director, edward lawry wrote to another director. and wanting to support you, but also recognizing that that trust and that accountability is so important, could you tell the committee what disciplinary actions have been involved with those who were responsible for leaking this data of a private citizen? especially in regards to director lawry? mr. clancy: there have been 42 secret service employees who were issued discipline with regard to that case you referred to here. many of those are in the appeal process and coming to the end of that appeal process. i can't speak specifically about what, because of privacy issues what each individual received as a result of those actions but it is something the agency is embarrassed by and we've said that publicly and in terms of are we holding people accountable and are people willing to come forward? in the year i've been here, we are now showing the discipline

across the board, supervisors as well as nonsupervisors, to be transparent to our agency, to show that what discipline, we're not naming people in this report but we put it up for everyone in our agency to see the type of , events, misconduct that occurs, and what type of discipline is put into effect as a result of that. mr. stewart: i guess this is just a contrast with what i experienced, using my military experience. when we had a concern, whatever it might be, whether we crashed an airplane or some type of security breach we knew immediately what the outcome would be. and the discipline was public and took place in a matter of days, maybe weeks. here we are a long time later and we don't know those who have , been disciplined. we don't know the outcome of that discipline. they're on appeal. just watching this, i can understand why some members of the organization would look at

this and say, we do have a hard time holding people accountable and the system protects them, it seems. and again, let's use director lowery as an example. i'd be curious to know what his position is. this is fairly egregious to me, him writing to another some information he might find embarrassing needs to get out. this is what he wrote about a public official. yet can you tell me any discipline that has been affected upon this individual or director? mr. clancy: i cannot speak to that currently, until this appeal progress goes through. title five,led to and i understand the frustration. it takes a long time to go through the process, but that is where we are today. mr. stewart: i appreciate that, i expected that would probably be your response. but again, director a long time has passed. if we're going to hold people accountable, it can't be accountable five years down the

road. in my opinion it's got to be , more immediate than that. but once again, we appreciate what you're doing. i think you're trying to do the right thing here under maybe confined, you know, restrictions that are imposed upon you. but my heavens, i can't imagine that these individuals would have this type of attitude, cavalier attitude, regarding their elected representatives and wouldn't be held accountable. mr. clancy: thank you. mr. stewart: do you want to respond? mr. clancy: no, sir. mr. stewart: mr. chairman, thank you, i yield back. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. whato want to echo chairman rogers said on the issue of peru. issue, and even peruvians say that outside of washington where there is the

biggest printing press in the whole world. why peru? we don't know. but i think the secret service is doing a great job, under the circumstances. i would echo chairman rogers that you ought to put more resources on that. even though i think you said that you got $10 million, that's probably just a drop in the bucket as to what they're doing. i would ask you to, following chairman rogers, ask you to follow up on that. second of all, director, what are y'all doing to combat transnational organized crime that targets citizens and financial institutions in the u.s.? i do have a press release which was in san antonio, i think in january, you did this san antonio electronic crime task force and you brought people together and i want to thank you, this is very, very good. i would encourage you to set up

something, talk to your folks, do something on the border also and i'd be happy to bring you down to laredo and work with your folks and i'd be happy to put folks from the border law enforcement, state, local folks, recommendations, whoever you might need from the private sector to sit down so i would , ask you to, you would do this on the border. everybody talks about the border, but when they do events, they usually do them 150 miles away. when they do events, they do them 150 miles away. but if we are going to talk about the border, and ask you to have your folks come down to the border. we would be happy to set that up for you. the other question i have -- whatever happened to the -- we talked about this a lot, the white house mockup. what was it, $15 million? how is that coming along?

>> we are in the process of welding out there training center. we are definitely committed to this mock white house. we had an initial design the came back to us. we are going back to reevaluate that design to see where we are with that. but we have the full intention of implementing that. >> what is your -- i think last are we talked about $15 million -- if i am going by memory -- as chairman hope -- carter says, we have to work with a tight budget. my experience working with the federal government, you started with a number and before you know it, it explodes. has that gone up? clancy: i know that the

initial design came back, which was a little bit more elaborate than what we really had expected and the cost was going to be higher. so we've gone back to the drawing board in that regard. >> will you keep us up-to-date on what the cost is good you start off of the initial number and i assume the number they give you went up and not down. so i would ask you to just keep us informed because i originally thought to the original amount was a lot. but again, i understand the purpose and the rationale. i am interested in you keeping the cost as close as possible to the amount. director clancy: yes, chrisman. representative culler: i

appreciate your good service. blaster, we gave you a million dollars and yours doing studies and so forth. us.ure and stay with director clancy: which is exactly why we went back to get another design. we want to be good citizens here with a budget here. but it is a critical element, as you have all addressed here area this will help our training, to move into the 21st century with allowing our people to train on the-life scenarios with exact grounds that we haven't the white house rather than on a hard tarmac surface. it is critical, but we know that we have to be very careful with

the way we move forward. mr. carter: just echoing what cuellar said. the secret service is responsible for securing both 1016 -- 2016 republicans and democrat national conventions. what is the state of planning for securing this year's political conventions in cleveland, philadelphia, and back-to-back weeks in july. do you have any credible threat information regarding the events to be held at these venues? are you satisfied that your fiscal year 2016 funding along with separate appropriations made available to home states will be sufficient to cover all foreseeable security costs of the conventions? mr. clancy: i want to thank the committee for fully funding the campaign which includes these conventions. the conventions itself, there's a fixed cost of i think $19 million and -- for just the r.n.c. and d.n.c.

another $20 million for associated costs with those conventions. as it is now we've had individuals out there specifically assigned to the conventions in cleveland and in philadelphia. they've been working with local law enforcement for several months here to work on everything from outer perimeter to credentials and we're well on our way to providing a very good security plan for these events. as you stated, mr. chairman, they are -- they are earlier this year than they typically are in a campaign year that does cause for some additional protection dollars coming out of the convention. in the past, conventions were late august or early september. now coming out of the conventions in july, we'll have additional protectees, we'll have the president-elect, i'm sorry, the candidate-elect and the vice president-elect for both parties and that will add some additional requests, it's in the budget but the costs go up as we move forward.

mr. carter: you're in charge of overall security for both conventions, the sanders campaign has brought a lot of new voters into the mix, the trump campaign on the republican side has brought millions of new voters into the mix. in addition, we've already experienced violent outbreaks with protesters coming in to disrupt the campaign side of stuff. those of us who can remember back to 1968 remember what happened in chicago and we don't -- nobody on either party wants to have a convention that ends up like chicago. back in the -- mr. clancy: 1968. mr. carter: tear gas fired, weapons fired, a lot of really bad things happened there. i believe national guard even called out for that democratic convention.

so whatever, you know, whatever you see -- whenever you see disruptors start to come in in campaigns, you have to say, how wig a project is this going to be? i hope you're doing, like i said, threat analysis and intel to see if there's any rumors out there or organizations to come in to disrupt either convention. we don't need that. we've got enough problems without that. mr. clancy: we are in charge of the overall security, we have 24 subcommittees for each of these conventions. each of those committees has a unique responsibility, whether it's intelligence, as you rightly mentioned, where they work with all the federal, state and local authorities to gather all the intelligence and we've already started that. then we've got a committee on transportation, just to make sure people can get to and from the sites. someone who works with the public affairs.

so there's 4 different -- so there's 24 different subcommittees working on each individual component to make sure that these conventions are safe and that they're a positive event for all that want to attend. mr. carter: i can say that i've been -- i've attended some of the conventions and i've been very pleased with overall the local and secret service's participation in keeping people safe. when you're in big crowds, big areas, in a strange city, yeah, a lot of things can happen to you and your wife if you're not careful, so thank you for that. ms. roybal-allard. ms. roybal-allard: director clancy, the budget request includes $2.2 million in -- includes $27.2 million in additional funding to upgrade the secret service national capitol area radio system this follows $16.8 million provided for phase one of the upgrade in the f.y. 2016 bill. can you elaborate on how the

phase 2 funding will be used, what additional capabilities the new system would provide, and how it would improve reliability as compared to the current system? mr. clancy: thank you for this question. this comes out of the blue ribbon panel as well, as we talked earlier they noted our communications needed to be enhance and replaced and additionally i have to credit the office of inspector general who did a study as well. although they saw that 97% of our radios work well around the white house complex they rightly stated that we can't have any failure at all and i have to credit, again, mr. roth and his team for the review they did . this funding will allow us to first of all joint operation center, most of that hasn't been replaced in seven years. it's getting old, breaking down, can't even find parts in some cases. but we're looking to, in this

joint operation center is where all our alarms come in, our video feeds come in. we'll be able to replace that and also to allow more interoperability with our local partners, metropolitan police, capitol police and taking some of their feeds as well. the joint operations center is going to be enhanced considerably. additionally, we'll continue what we've already started, fiscal year 2016, getting radios out, hand held radios to our individual employees which will be state of the art with a lot of new features and the coverage will be better using these radios. but maybe more importantly, we did survey throughout the national capital region where typically this president has events or visits or motorcade routes and where are those dead spots? with the help of our field office we identified these locations and we're going to add an additional 56 repeaters and transmitters throughout the national capital region and that all has an impact on how the hand held radios work.

that's a big plus up for us as well. ms. roybal-allard: could you talk a little bit about what the status of radios and radio systems are for field offices? mr. clancy: that will also be included in this funding. for example, i went to chicago and talked to the field office there and surrounding field offices. in this effort to communicate with our work forces, i can't get out toern so i've gone to -- i can't get out to everyone. so i've gone to doing some videos, pushing out videos when we have new policies or state of the service for example we introduced a few weeks ago but because of band width in some smaller offices they can't see some of these messages. so we will get more band width, which will help us not only with our messages but also security. we have to have a better infrastructure as we expand from large field offices to surrounding communities. ms. roybal-allard: i'm going back to the white house,

improvements that were completed with interim solution, as i understand it. and it was designed to make it more difficult to scale the fence and giving officers on the white house grounds a critical few extra seconds to respond. can you describe the improvements to the current fence and whether they are working more or less as expected? and what are the plans and the schedule for completing a new and permanent fence? mr. clancy: yes. the interim measure was placed on the white house fence in july of 2015. we knew that wasn't going to be an end all, obviously but it was going to buy us some time if someone did attempt to jump the fence. we've had, since we've put that up there, we've had one fence jumper over the north fence there and we think it is a deterrent. i don't have metrics to show it because we don't know who has an intent to come over the fence but one individual did get over the fence and he was immediately

contained just on the other side of the fence but moving forward, the permanent fence, very complex and it's a lengthy process. and we know that whatever fence we put in there has to last 100 years. we're not going to get another opportunity to do this. we could go in and just put up a higher fence, maybe 10 foot fence, but is that enough? maybe you need a 12 foot fence. is 12 feet enough? we have to do more studying with that and there's some other areas , in a classified setting i could talk about, where we want to do some things with the fence but also a more comprehensive look at what we're doing at the white house and the perimeter there. the perimeter, as you know, every day, just last week, we have a buffer as you know, you walked in front of the white house, there's a bike rack there. that's been a good help to us. we know people can get over the bike rack but it gives us an early warning that someone has bad intentions. just last week we had an

individual who went over the bike rack and we immediately, because we added additional posts, immediately contained that individual right there before they could get to the fence. so in terms of your time, the timeline, 2017 will still be used to design and do some more research on the type of fence that we need. in 2018 is when we expect to be able to put a shovel in the ground and start to build a more permanent fence. i can tell you that even last week we met with the national planning commission and the commission on fine arts, they foal the same urgency we do to -- they feel the same urgency we do to get this thing, this project completed, but we have to do it right and that's where we are. 2018 actually getting it into the ground, i think. ms. roybal-allard: thank you. mr. carter: mr. price. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. director, i'd like to address your relationship with the science and technology

directorate. secret service relies heavily on your colleagues in the directorate to develop and validate tools you and your agents use in the field every day. unlike some of your other d.h.s. counterpart agencies that have in-house research capabilities, you're more dependent on the department's research and testing capability to ensure you have the tools and resources needed to carry out your mission. could you speak to that, the way you work with s&t and the val of that relationship and how is your ability to fulfill your mission dependent on funding for them? mr. clancy: we do have a good relationship with them. their director came down to the white house complex and we gave him a full tour of our facility and what we have in place and we worked with them, one of the bigger problems today is the drones out there we worked with

them as well as other partners outside of d.h.s. to try to come up with the best detection systems that are out there as well as mitigation. so this is a critical issue, the drone issue, for both d.h.s., science and technology, as well as us. so there are numerous meetings between s&t and our technical department director. mr. price: i want to return to some of the other s&t projects perhaps but on the drone issue, you catch my attention here. what is the -- what is the secret service's particular take on that issue, how does it relate to the involvement of other agencies? how would you describe that? mr. clancy: it's a problem for everyone. mr. price: i realize that, that's why i asked.

mr. clancy: f.a.a. is taking a role with education, educating the public and ensure they know areas they cannot fly these u.a.s.'s, unmanned aerial devices, we worked with department of defense because they have a lot of experience, certainly out in the wartime zone. our challenges are a little unique because we're in an urban environment. some of the things they can do to mitigate and detect drones in a military environment are different than we have here in an urban environment where you do have to be concerned about the public and of course public buildings and so on. but the technology, though, is where we are working very closely and sharing. that's the important thing here, i think, is that there is a

sharing of ideas, there's no holding back and in fact, just a couple of weeks ago, my assistant director of technology informed me that they're working with the germans now too to see what they have out there and the sharing of ideas. i know the blue ribbon panel talked about how insular we are, . we made a committed effort to make sure that we branch out and we see all the good work that's being done out there and science and technology and d.h.s. i know is doing the same. so we're getting the best advice we can get. mr. price: on the ground, specific setting, a permanent setting like the white house or special event setting, i assume that -- those words detection and mitigation are shorthand for a whole range of activities. to what extent does the secret service take on an independent or proactive responsibility for this? mr. clancy: i don't want to get into specifics with regards to what measures we have in place . but i will say that beyond science and technology, it also affects our staff that are on the ground, our uniformed

officers. they're trained what to look for . if they see a drone in the air, what do they look for? how do they respond to it? also protective details, whether in the white house or on a trip in some other city throughout the country, they have specific protocols if one of these devices is in the air. mr. price: i have another minute, could you return to s&t? or you can do this for the record, are there other particular areas of collaboration where you're dependent on s&t and therefore s&t funding to support your own mission? mr. clancy: in terms of s&t funding, i'll have to get back to you on that but i will say that everything from our enhancements with c.b.r. detection at the white house to enhancements of our perimeter defenses, we work with s&t to see what the best types of systems there are out there,

x-rays, etc. we'll work with s&t. mr. price: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. carter: mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: i live on the border, represent a large chunk of the border so we understand what's happening across. we spend, i believe, about $18 million when you combine everything on border security, north, south, a lot of money. so we play defense on the 1-yard line, what we call the 1-yard line. i'd rather play defense on the ir 20-yard line rather than our 1-yard line. the more we can do to work with the republic of mexico and i believe secretary -- the secretary is here, or will be here with secretary johnson and i appreciate the work they're doing and whatever we can do with our central american and other latin american countries will be good. could you tell us what your efforts are in particular what you're doing with keeping that in mind, moving the defense --

moving the fence a little more and the more we can do in those countries, what we're doing with the republic of mexico and central america to address some of this transnational problems that we're seeing right now? mr. clancy: i would just say we have, again, perfect -- a terrific relationship with the government of mexico, we have an agent, we have an office in mexico city -- mr. cuellar: one agent? mr. clancy: i believe just one agent. i'm sorry, congressman, i don't know that number offhand, i'll get it to you. i will say that just recently we had reason to work with the mexican government. they had the pope's visit in juarez and they did a tremendous job. but knowing that we had experienced the pope's visit in

the fall, we offered any advice they may want but -- and we did talk to, we sent our agents down there to talk to them, give them our experiences. but again, i have to say that the mexicans did a terrific job with protection of the pope just a couple of months ago. mr. cuellar: again i would ask you to institutionalize the working relationship with the republic of mexico and central america. the more we can do outside the 1-yard line defense, the better it is. i encourage you to do as much as we can under our tight budgets we have. again, i appreciate, i know changing the culture has been hard. we talked about it a lot. i know chairman carter and members of the committee, we talked a lot about it and i know there's still incidents, but keep addressing the culture within the secret service because off lot of good men and women working in our government so i appreciate that. and the final point, because i know you've got to go, but the last point is, the hiring

process, and i know this has been an issue with homeland, it takes a long time, you start off with jobs.gov and then you go through the process and i understand from your earlier testimony you've been reducing that. so the more you can keep working on that, the better it is because i've had people say, i'm not going to wait a year or year and a half. by that time they move on to something else so whatever you can do to shorten that time up, i really would appreciate it. mr. clancy: i'll comment on that one item. we have instituted entry level assessment centers where we'll bring in candidates and give them an interview, give them -- a test if they pass the test a super interview and then schedule polygraph in the near future if not that weekend. mr. cuellar: keep working with the hispanic serving institutions and black universities also and other places of course. but there's pools of qualified individuals that you can start them as interns and move them on. thank you so much, my time is

up. mr. carter: director, we'll end this hearing now. you've done a great job. we thank you for the great service you've done here lately. we're really proud of you. keep it up, keep up the good work. i compliment the service. and thank them for their good job. mr. clancy: mr. chairman, thank you, ranking member roybal-allard, thank you. i commend your staffs as well. we want to be transparent and your staffs have been patient with us as we've gotten our structure together this first year but my thanks to you and your staffs. mr. carter: we'll continue to work together for the betterment of everything. thank you, sir. we're adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

announcer: tonight, president obama announces his supreme court nominee in senators mitch mcconnell and did durban comment on the nomination. and later, a news conference with federal reserve chair janet yellen. announcer: thursday, the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing on the contamination in flint, michigan administration.

you can watch it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3. and you will get another chance to watch the hearing thursday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span or watch at any time at our website, www.c-span.org. announcer: this weekend, the takes you to tour montgomery, alabama, to explore the city's history and literary culture. that wasw you a house the turning port -- turning point for scott and zelda. said, a regrouping, as i stage. and it wasn't the sort of place where you are going to find scott and zelda engaging in domestic activities, if you

will. it was a sort of place where they were going to be planning their next move. announcer: on american history tv. >> what happened in the campaign, wallace really does try to reach this racial moderate and really tries to campaign for the poor and walk -- poor and working-class and gets the support of the naacp in his initial campaign. unfortunately, he loses by a pretty significant margin to john patterson. and he is completely devastated by this loss. wallace, all he wants to be as governor, and he is really upset by this loss. he considers it a feeling. when people ask and what the take away from the 1958 campaign tried says, you know, i to talk about progressive improvements. i tried to talk about good roads and good schools and no one would listen.

started talking about segregation, everybody stopped and started listening to me. my announcer: watch the c-span .ities tour sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. the c-span cities to a, working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. announcer: today, president obama nominated chief judge merrick garland for the u.s. supreme court. in his or her marks at the white house, the president urged the senate to hold confirmation hearings and a floor vote on the nominee. we will also hear from judge garland at this half hour event.

president obama: good morning, everybody please have a seat. of the many powers and possibilities that the constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a supreme court justice. particularly one to succeed justice antonin scalia, one of the most important jurists of our time. the men and women to sit on the court or the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not men. they are charged with the essential task of applying the polls put to paper or than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take lightly.