what happens through federal grants, federal regulation, the federal government is picking winners and losers, driving people out of business if they don't have the right lobbyists and creating a system in which liberty and the rights of the people are sacrificed for their greed and political gain, case on point, when monsanto. there are farmers who are growing heirloom crops and the monsanto seeds were blowing into their field corrupting the crops. the farmers tried to sue them to keep their crops, proceeds from corrupting their crops. the farmers did not prevail, and monsanto filed a countersuit surveying the farmers for patent infringement because the seeds were flowing onto the property and they were stealing patented property. what is even worse is that congress has created regulations that protect the monsanto from lawsuits and protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits making them have immunity from lawsuits for their product. once again, the problem is not corporations. the problem is the activity in congress. and when congress unites with quotations, you are not a constitu

, the federal judges are bound by law to follow state law, not federal law. mr. chairman, there is nobody better at interpreting and following state law than state court judges. it stands to reason. i offer this amendment that is at the desk to exempt consumer cases against insurance companies for bad faith and insurance practices. the majority is going to persist and present this gift to multistate, multinational corporations at least include this amendment and protect consumers. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. claim time in opposition? mr. farenthold: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farenthold: this continues to victimize innocent local parties because they happen to be involved in an insurance case. the underlying bill is designed to protect folks from being dragged into a lawsuit just to facilitate forum shop big plaintiffs' attorneys. the burn of this bill is to allow judges greater discretion to free these innocent local parties. and they are the ones that are suffering as a resul

funding ratthe federal fundingrate to ar objectives. that's based on theiew that the nominal federal fund rate that is the interest rate is neither expansionary or contract sherry and keeps the economy operating on an even k-kilo is currently quite low by historical standards. that means the federal funding rate doesn't have to rise by all that much to get to a mutual policy stance. we also expect to the level of e federal funds rate to rise over time meaning additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion. even so, the committee continues to anticipate that the longer run natural level of the federal funds rate is still likely to remain below the level that prevailed in the previous decades. the view is consistent with the participants predictions of appropriate monetary policy. the median prediction is 1.4% at the end of this year. 2.1% at the end of next year and 3% at the end of 2019. in line with its estimated longer run value. compared with the projections made i

today the federal open market committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter percentage point, bringing it to three quarters to 1%. our decision to make another gradual reduction in the amount of policy accommodation reflects the economy's continued progress toward the employment and price stability objectives assigned to us by law. for some time, the committee has judged that if economic conditions einvolved as anticipated, gradual increases in the federal fund rate would likely be appropriate it achieve and pain maintain our objectives. today's decision is in line with that view and does not represent a reassessment of the economic outlook or of the appropriate course for monetary policy. i'll have more to say about monetary policy shortly but first i'll review recent economic developments in the outlook. the's con my continues to expand at a moderate pace. solid income gains and relatively high levels of consumer sentiment and wealth have supported household spending fwroej. growth. business investment which was soft for much of last year has

a useful concept in this regard is the neutral real federal the liste, defined as of the federal fundsate, that when adjusted for inflation is neither expansionary nor contractionary when the economy is operating near its potential. in affect, a new policy stance is one where monetary policy neither has its foot on the brake, nor is pressing down on the accelerator. although the concept of the neutral real federal funds rate is exceptionally useful in assessing policy, it is difficult in practical termsto know with precision where that rate stands. as a result, and as i described in a recent speech, my colleagues and i consider a wide range of information when assessing that rate. as i will discuss our discuss, our- assessments of the neutral rate have significantly shifted down over the past few years. most recentttee's projections last december, most fomc participants assessed the longer-run value of the neutral, real federal funds rate to be in the vicinity of 1%. this level is quite low by historical standards, reflecting, in part, slow productivity growth, and an aging population,

know is a federal mandate and enforce federal law. we listen to adam defend states rights. and defending rights for states to act, what they believe is their own good. let's hear it. andrea: charles: the floor is yours. i am going to show you how nimble i am. >> how i can change my response based on your provocation. i don't see this as a states rights issue. you don't take away federal funding for all the other things you want to do federal funding for to punish somebody for having done something in a different issue. there is a difference between what is illegal and good policy. charles: president trump's budget this week intends to cut off funding at least so far by $200 million to sanctuary cities, they are breaking the law harboring fugitives. this is absolutely nuts, no matter what side of the political aisle you are on. >> they are locally elected officials breaking federal law and flaunting it. we have laws on paying taxes. if i don't pay my taxes on -- there will be repercussions. you change behavior by holding back the bucke

such total loss of federal funding may amount to the unconstitutional coercion of the states by the federal government. as a practical matter losing federal funding can bankrupt already struggling is something i find unacceptable. for these and other recen reason what is a close call that a call that i find is important just leave it to states and local governments, the decision,, decisions that might help the economically depressed and those who need it greatly. i find the bill unnecessary unproblematic and, therefore, i continue to have concerns and would oppose the bill. i yield back. >> the chair would never recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues, this is an interesting question, and my first observation is that most states already taking action, and your comes the feds marching in to determine what they ought to do or can do. i'm concerned about a provision in the bill denying federal economic development funds for two years. if the states appear to be in consensus on the need to prevent abuse

the rule at issue is about federal management of federal land -- federal control over land owned by the federal government, pure and simple. the rule took effect in -- affect in september, it does not restrict subsistence hunting or normal hunting practices, it does not imperil public safety or impede on property, it prevents cruel hunting methods that protects vulnerable bears, wolves, and coyotes on lands that were intended to provide refuge for these animals -- refuge is the key word. this resolution subverts the judgment of professional wildlife managers to adopt sensible wildlife management based on the best available science. if the united states fish and wildlife service rule is undermine, any state will be permitted to allow egregious killing methods on these wildlife refuges which is the one category of federal land specifically set aside to benefit wildlife. that is its singular purpose. so i will oppose this legislation because i believe in preserving our nation's natural ecosystems and the constitutional responsibility of the federal government to manage feral lands for all

the federal communication -- the federal communications commission creates a gap and will leave portions of the internet ecosystem completely outside the federal trade commission's jurisdiction. this bill makes clear that the common carrier exemption is important to ensure that no duplication regulation occurs but at the same time there are no loopholes left for certain companies be outside the jurisdiction of the federal trade commission. we need to be consistent in our approach to privacy and focus on consumer enforcement. this approach has been the foundation not just for silicon valley by innovators across the country and the bill sets right and spurred job growth in the united states and greater online services for consumers. i thank the gentleman for yielding and, mr. speaker, as i said, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. flores reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd remind my friend since he acknowledges the court decision does not allow f.t.c. jurisdiction and he wants to introduce a bill, perhaps the republicans should

medicaid is not a federal program. it is a combination of the states and the federal. we gave more money from the federal government to encourage states to expand health care to some of the poorest people in our country. host: the cbo said well premiums would rise by 15% to 20% the first couple of years, they would decrease in 2020. guest: the biggest complaint now about the affordable care act was the premiums and the lack of competition. i have heard from hospitals and doctors and insurance companies who do not like what the bill came out of committee last week. it is a building opposition to it from the industry involved in health care because of the uncertainty of how this bill would work with tax credits instead of helping people go by insurance. -- go buy insurance. host: illinois, republican. caller: the first thing i want to say is i think they should leave the president alone and let him go. they let obama go and let -- they should give everyone -- everyone should be equal is the way i look at it, no matter if you are democrat or republican or liberal. they ou

because one federal judge has said so? it's absurd that one federal judge has the ability to override the constitutional authority of the president. there are three branches of government for a reason. and the president is going to appeal this ruling right to the supreme court. but you are going to get judge gorsuch in there is he clearly qualified to be a supreme court justice. more importantly have you one or two federal judges who want to legislate from the bench who think that they have more authority than they really do. this is not how the system is supposed to work. the president under the 8 u.s. code 1182 clearly has the authority. barack obama use dhd authority. george w. bush used this authority it goes all the way back to world war ii. it is clearly the purview of the president of the united states to temporarily suspend individuals from coming in if he believes they are going to do our country harm until we can do better vetting. there is no question about it. clayton: you saw paul ryan having to drink that fla

jeff sessions at said the justice department is following through on an executive order to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities. places where local law enforcement limits their cooperation with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. attorney general sessions spoke to reporters at the white house briefing. >> the department of justice has a duty to enforce our nation's laws, including our immigration laws. those laws require us to properly remove aliens when they are convicted or detained of certain crimes. the vast majority of american people support this comment se requirementnse. according to one recent poll, 80% of americans believe that cities that make arrests, that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws. this includes refusing to detain non-felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. for example, the department of homeland security recently issu

our topic federalism and over our lifetimes we have witnessed disturbing expansion of federal governmenteyond what our founders ever anticipated. that expansion of federal government has gotten worse over the last eight years under president obama. we have great privilege to welcome governor to discuss various issues of federal growth and regulatory over reach. they bring a first happened perspective on why states can and should be a laboratory of change within our governmental system within the united states. just a couple of words on each of the governors. starting to my far right, governor ducci is the 33 governor of arizona. he was elected in 2014. he inherited a $1 billion definite he fixed. thank you. he has been consistently committed to growth, job growth, restoring fiscal responsibility and protecting the citizens of arizona. comes to the job with great business backgrounds. partner and ceo. >>> governor of kansas selected in 2010. he attorney by training. former congressman and senator. he signed the largest income tax cut in kansas history in 2012. he has been a champion for l

our topic today is federalism.nd certainly over our lifetimes, we've witnessed a frightening and really disturbing expansion of federal government. far beyond what our founders ever anticipated, and they truly did work hard to work against and to prevent. and that expansion of federal government has only gotten worse over the last eight years under president obama. today we have the great privilege to welcome four outstanding governors to discuss these very significant issues of federal growth and regulatory overreach. and they really do bring a great firsthand perspective why states should be the laboratory of the governmental system in the united states. just a couple of works on each of our governors. starting to my far right, governor doosy, the 23rd governor of arizona. [ applause ] he was elected in 2014. he inherited a $1 billion deficit that he fixed. thank you, governor. [ applause ] he's consistently been committed to economic growth, job restoration, and of course, protecting the citizens of arizona. com

it's not federal. i did a little survey of my own, is federal eople, reserve bank federal? they all said yes. are not. how many government employees board? that two appointed by the president, probably. wish we would go back to the old u.s. treasury and let our our ury department run economy and not private bankers. it's like letting the foxes into the hen house, for goodness sake. guest: okay, distinguish between a couple things. the u.s. treasury is still there. it is still the agency that sells debt and pays off debt and taxes and all that. treasury hasn't gone anywhere. is hybrid fed system. he board of governors supposed to be seven members, only five sitting right now, that may be is on theur soon, one way out, this will give a chance for president trump to make new and when he if chooses. they do sit in washington. they are the most powerful within that system. they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the there is a process similar to that for say supreme there.udges in place then there are 12 regional banks, sort of artifact of discussions long, long ago

tackle the federal deficit in other ways, not to tackle them by cutting federal deficits between about to have federal investment, a smaller percentage of gdp than at any point in my lifetime. that is not overlooking growth oriented budget policy. i was picking up on your point about the present. i think he has reset expectations for growth. i think it's reset them in a totally unrealistic way. i don't think there is strong evidence that this administrations economic policies will lead to faster growth on balance than the previous administrations economic policies. on one edge of my talk about tax reform that might happen or regulatory reform that might ease growth. on the other hand, we might have cutbacks of federal investments. we have immigration policy. whether those ballots out to raise or lower growth relative to the policies we've had in place is not at all clear to me. i think we could achieve sustained growth in the low 2% range, sustained growth, not a a year or two what over a decade. it would be a real accomplishment now. i'm not sure setting expectations of three or four

in carrying out federal policy. it conditions the use of vaguely defined economic development fund on state's funds and threatens to take away those funds for two years if the state doesn't comply. such total loss may result in coercion of the states by the federal government. as a practical matter, losing federal funding is something i find unacceptable. on what is a close call, a call that i find is important to leave it to states and local governments the decision and decisions that might help the economically depressed and those who need it greatly, i find the bill unnecessary and problematic and would oppose the bill. mr. king: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers of michigan for his opening statement. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, this is a interesting question and my first observation is that most states are already taking action and here comes the feds marching in to determine what they ought to

our topic today is federalism. and certainly over a lifetime as we witnessed a frightening and really disturbing expansion of federal government.far beyond what our founders ever anticipated and they truly did work hard to work against and present and that expansion of federal government has only gotten worse over the last eight years under president obama. today we have a great privilege of arizona. governor sam brownback from kansas. [applause] governor of kansas elected in 2010. he is now in his second term. attorney by training. also of course a former congressman and senator. he signed the largest income tax cut in kansas history and 2012. [applause] he has been a champion for government education systems and environments that promote job creation. and governor scott walker. the 45th governor. [applause] in his second term he was a member of the wisconsin legislature. former county executive from the walk kathy and he won his heavily democratic county in the wake of what was a huge scandal at that time and eas

and i would like to talk about what he called "federal history." old-fashioned federal history. no one was doing old-fashioned federal history, and now i know why. i begin this project in 1996 and it has taken me almost 20 years to bring to the light of day what has been a labor of love for more than two decades. one of the things that i thought i needed to do to acquaint myself with federal history was not only visit all of the statehouses and read all of the of thers' letter books governors of 23 northern states, but i came to recognize that statehouses and state governors were caused was between the national and the local. threedecided to read newspapers for every one of those 23 northern states for every day of the war. through that i am asked several hundred pages of testimony about how central the statehouse became during the american civil war. began to reflect on putting pen to paper, i kept coming up with the same theme, saying opening scenes for what is a continuing work in progress, our democratic ideal and our self-government. so, imagine this scene in april 1861. it

dubois' harshest critics argue she may have violated federal law. the leader of the regions are just umbrella organization advocating for immigrants because her actions irresponsible. >> shannon: thank you very much. up next, a showdown over president trump's supreme court nominee. first, here's what's from of our fox affiliates around the country are covering. fox 5 in new york. prison sentences for two former aides of new jersey governor chris christie. bill baroni sentenced to two years. bridget kelly gets 18 months. governor christie was never charged in the destination into what prosecutor said was a political revenge plot against a new jersey mayor who refused to support kristy's reelection campaign. fox 11 in torrance, california. one or several oil refinery consider their response to an epa report finding numerous safety violations. inspectors tight broken safety equipment and inadequate risk management plans. refinery managers say they are using a modified form of toxic acid to make it safer but critics question whether that's true. this is

>> 15i67 ersafer because of pre taken in federal and state courthouses. again, the courthouse is the avenue to justice that most individuals will have. and again the idea that if you're a victim of domestic violence or of a crime and would be deterred from seeking justice for the crime against you because you feared being detained really runs afoul of basic principles, democracy and access to justice. not just courthouses. we heard stories about i.c.e. agents lingering around hospitals. >> schools. >> schools. not just the courthouses. >> i don't want to leave this discussion without talking about the confirmation hearings that begin monday for neil gorsuch, president trump's nominee for the supreme court. what should we look for? any indication how he might rule on immigration if this travel ban, for example, ends um in the supreme court? >> well, i think everything that's happened this week has heightened interest in the gorsuch confirmation hearings which begin on monday. neil gorsuch served as a high-ranking official in the bush 2 department of justic

into carrying out federal policy. it conditions the use of vaguely defined federal funds on state's willingness to use the eminent domain and threatens to take away those funds for two years if the state doesn't comply. such total loss of funding may amount to coercion of the states by the federal government. as a practical matter it could bankrupt many struggling mu nis pants and something i find very unacceptable. but these and other reasons or what say close call but a call i find is important to leave it to states and local government, the decision and decisions that might help the economic and depressed more than those that need it greatly. i find the bill unnecessary and problematic and therefore i continue to have concerns and oppose the bill. >> gentlemen, we'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr. connorz of michigan for his opening statement. mr. connors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues, this is an interesting question, and my first observation is that most states are already

years inook at several the federal budget i much more worried about the prospect of sharp cuts in federal spending that i think would be damaging the long-term growth projects by cutting back federal investment and especially damaging to incomes of lower income people who are dependent on certain forms of government spending. i think our economic policy in this country should be oriented especially for raising liver standards -- living standards for lower and middle income people. the first step is to do no harm by not taking away benefits people are depending on. i worry a lot in the short term about inappropriate cutbacks to government spending. beyond that, i think we can make changes that put the debt on a more sustainable path. this changes our less urgent because interest rates are so low. the last panel just finished with that point. i've written a paper with someone from brookings about the implications of what interest rate for fiscal policy and there are a number of possible explanations and the explanations have different implications for fiscal policy. on balance, they imply i

that's the job of the federal government. there are well-known constitutional limits on the ability of the federal governments to withhold funds to the states. state and local officials know their communities and know how to keep them safe better than the federal government. the constitution's long-standing principle is apparently either ignored or seen as an impediment by some people. in the recent executive order on interior enforcement, president trump abolished the prior administration's enforcement priorities to go after all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states just as candidate trump promised he would. while this agenda my satisfy the most extreme elements in our country it isn't smart. it does not make our country safer and it does not make our country stronger. and it has created a churl of fear. there are videos of parents taken from their children by armed i.c.e. officers. there are stories of mothers who lived in this country for decades being deported after dutifully checking in to i.c.e. apartm

you said that the newel ral level of the federal funds rate is quite low. how close do you judge it to be to the inflation rate and what do you anticipate will be the force pushing up the neutral interest rate over the next few years? could fiscal policy be among those? ms. yellen: i've given a number of recent speeches on this topic where i develop my views. more fully. i would say over the longer run that means going several years out. i think the evidence suggests that the neutral rate may be something in real terms that might be close to 1% or a little bit under that. that would be consistent with the median longer run value of the federal funds rate in our economic projections for the last several meetings. 3% is the locker run. normal federal funds rate our participants estimate in real terms with the 2% inflation objective and that is 1% in real terms. and why is it so low? well, i think there is strong evidence that accumulated that this rate has been falling not just in the united states but in many advanced nations and the decline probably pre-dat

we have reshot to our federal delegation and our federal lobbyist to keep us informed as things change. we have a little bit more of a window than the aca proposal, but we'll keep you informed as we go forward. the budget for our 18-19 allocation of cd bg of course comes to you through the expend resolution, so you'll see that come to you next march or april of 2018. so you can make your comments on that. >> that's it. thank you. okay. let me see -- any questions. president breed, thank you very much mr. chiu. come on down. >> chair cohen, rodriguez, san francisco department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to present, this afternoon on the implications of the proposed -- the president's skinny budget on the environment. normally when i come to budget committee it's standing at the podium asking you to approve and accept and expend given the president's budget. you'll probably see lots of me given that a lot of opportunities that the city has gone after in federal funding opportunities are dramatically dropping in the president's proposed budget. >> excuse me. we were

these are non-federal dam. we had a fund where we would remove those dams that were no longer a purpose. >> and senator, we have just removed the high profile one, we have an agreement with interior of the state of oregon to remove four dams, there's one in ventura county that has silted up that by 2020 it will have a 0% capacity and once what was a 7,0 7,000 square foot dam all silted up. it was safety, fish, it was outlived the usefulness and some of the rate payers had to contribute but in some cases there's such a small base and the cost to remove the dam is so big that we have to leverage something. >> i understand that would be to pay remove this dam therefore have to look for a public source or some way in which there's a broader base to pay for the removal of the dam. you're experience could be helpful to other states, i would courage that best practices shared as to how you were able to do this because in my state we have been unable to take care of the circumstance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator

we have reshot to our federal delegation and our federal lobbyist to keep us informed as things change. we have a little bit more of a window than the aca proposal, but we'll keep you informed as we go forward. the budget for our 18-19 allocation of cd bg of course comes to you through the expend resolution, so you'll see that come to you next march or april of 2018. so you can make your comments on that. >> that's it. thank you. okay. let me see -- any questions. president breed, thank you very much mr. chiu. come on down. >> chair cohen, rodriguez, san francisco department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to present, this afternoon on the implications of the proposed -- the president's skinny budget on the environment. normally when i come to budget committee it's standing at the podium asking you to approve and accept and expend given the president's budget. you'll probably see lots of me given that a lot of opportunities that the city has gone after in federal funding opportunities are dramatically dropping in the president's proposed budget. >> excuse me. we were

he clearly undercut the commitment to federal resources. we also know that he has previously supported efforts to restrict use of the an ticketies act. he appears open to efforts to repeal certain designated monuments he has indicated one of his first priorities upon confirmation will be to visit utah to consider a republican proposal to rescind the recently designated bears ears national monument. is this despite the strong support of many across the nation and in utah and tribal support for bears ears intertribal coalition representing the affected tribes in this region. as somebody who enjoys the outdoors, i can tell you how important it is to be able to go and wreck reate. -- to recreate. i know many have seen this unique terrain and it is a very special place. as we enter this debate, bears ears and its monument and whether you're going to roll back federal land will be at the center of this discussion. created by president obama, bears ears encompasses 1.3 million acres of mesas, sand stone canyons and spiritually significant lands to

there are two agencies, the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission. however, it is only the f.c.c., the federal communications commission that can actually protect consumers by enforcing the protection. the f.t.c. does not have that authority. and so what happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from the american people? well, all the information that you give to your internet rvice provider, whether it's comcast, cable providers, charter, at&t, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, they can take all of the information that they have, my account, your account, your account, your account, and use that information to sell it to the highest bidder to make money off of it. now there's an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and that is, well, what about google and netflix and facebook, what about them? why aren't they subject to what the f.c.c. did? well, they are edge providers. they are edge providers. you don't have to go to google. you don't have to go to facebook. you don't have to go to netflix in order to get your

complies with federal law. absolutely we do. >> spokesman for dhs secretary kelly told fox news today that dhs has not made any decisions on withdrawing grant money to local jurisdictions it deems to be in violation until a clear definition of sanctuary is released. austin mayor says he hopes that that happens very quickly. >> i think ultimately these questions are going to go before the supreme court, and i hope that they get teed up and get into those forms as quickly as possible because the uncertainty and anxiety associated with what's happening right now, the confion associed wh at's happening right now is undermining public safety. >> and, trish, much like the administration's first rollout of that travel ban, some suggest the attorney general sessions appearance last monday announcing that this policy was premature given enforcement and penalty have not yet really been decided. others say this early heads up is beneficial because it gives local jurisdictions time to adjust. but very, very different defin

equal to about half the federal budget. yet another study estimated that regulation has shaved .8% off u.s. annual growth -- .8%. that's a lot. a growth rate that was already too low to begin with. so you can see the effect that heavy-handed regulations can have on our nation's economy. there's no question that some regulations are necessary and even beneficial to our country, but washington should assess the real impact regulations will have before implementing them. undoing the damage of the past several years is going to take some time, but fortunately there are meaningful steps we've already begun taking to bring relief. just last night we took another step by blocking a sweeping labor regulation that would have threatened american businesses, workers, and taxpayers at-large. today we'll keep working to dial back even more harmful regulations like the one before us now, the so-called b.l.m. planning 2-point0 rule. don't let the name fool you. it has little to do with current policy. it represents another power grab push

said the department is following through to gold a federal grant has to withhold a federal grant do notties that cooperate with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. u.s. ambassador to the u.n. nikki haley said today the u.s. will boycott talks to ban their weapons. the judiciary committee postpones a vote on supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. everyhington journal live day with news and policy issues that impact you. willoundation economist frame the upcoming debate on tax reform and examine democratic republican and bipartisan proposals. then north carolina republican congressman walter jones and california democratic congressman john garamendi will join us to talk about a cosponsor bill. c-span -- bech sure to watch c-span journal live tuesday morning. join the discussion. vice president mike pence also spoke to the aipac conference. he talked sunday about moving the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, which he said the trump administration is considering. this is 20 minutes. [applause] ♪ ambassador,ence: members of congress, israeli ministers, distinguished guests, fellow

both federal district court judges. but more importantly, my luck series of with a judgets in the past week, federal judges, republican appointees, and some democratic appointees. and there was a vocal outcry of the outrage of this legislation. asking and begging that this legislation not be put in place. let me give you a description from the federal courts. recognizing we, of course, share the desire of the sponsors of lara to improve the civil justice system. and that is the lawsuit abuse reduction act, in our federal courts, including the desire to reduce frivolous filings. but lara creates a curse worse than the problem it is meant to solve. moreover, as we're both federal trial judges, our perspective is formed by an ongoing daily experience without practical operation of the rules. i, too, am concerned about small businesses. need to proceed as we're proceeding. it gives thoughtful judges the ability to protect those entities. the facts do need to proceed no the letter, support any assumption that mandatory sanct

they are not federal dams. these are not federal dams. we have a fund where we moved those dams and they no longer served a purpose. >> senator we have removed a high-profile one in monterey county. we have an agreement with interior of the state of oregon to remove four dams on the river. there's one in ventura county that has by 2020 it will have a 0% capacity we will have what was once a 7000-acre foot dam completely with soap behind it. you nailed the problem. we have raised the money from private donors and different public funds to deal with these dam removals because it was finished and it's outlived its usefulness in some of the ratepayers had to contribute but in some of these cases they are on such a small base that the cost for removing the dam is so big that we have to leverage other money. >> we have a responsible party, i understand that and get paid to remove the spam and therefore we have to vote for either a public source for some way in which there is a broader base to pay for removal of the dam. in your experience could

today the federal open market committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate quarters percentage point bringing it to three quarters to 1%. our decision to make another gradual reduction in the amount of policy accommodation reflects the economies continued progress towards the employment and price stability objectives assigned to us by law. for some time the committee has judged that its economic conditions involved as anticipated gradual increases with the federal funds rate would likely be appropriate to achieve and maintain our objectives. today's decision is in line with that view and is not represent a reassessment of economic outlook or of the appropriate course for monetary policy. i will have more to say about monetary policy shortly but first i will reveal recent economic developments in outlook. the economy continues to expand and a moderate pace. solid income gains in relatively high levels of consumer sentiment and wealth had supported household spending growth business investment which was soft for much of last year has affirmed somewhat. busines

>> well, that's right, but i think one concerned about supporting federal investment is to tackle federal investments in other ways. we are about to have federal investments, a smaller percentage of gdp than at think point my lifetime. -- any point in my lifetime. picking up on your point, glenn, about the president, i think he has reset expectations for growth. i think he's roadway set them in a -- reset them this a totally unrealistic way. i don't think there's strong evidence that this administration's economic policies will lead to faster or growth on balance than the previous administration's economic policies. on one hand, you might talk about tax reform or regulatory reform that might boost growth. on the other hand, we have cutbacks in federal investment, we have restrictive immigration policies and the process of restrictive trade policies. whether those balance out to raise or lower growth relative to the policies we've had in place is not at all clear to me. i think that we could achieve sustained growth in the low 2% range, sustained growth. not a year or two, but over a daled

in federal spending that i think would be damaging to long-term growth cutting at-bat -- back on federal investment and especially damaging to in terms of lower and middle income people who are more dependent on certain forms of government spending. i think our economic policy in this country should be oriented explicitly towards raising living standards for lower and middle income people. there are a number of steps we can take to do that, but the first thing is to do no harm, by not taking away benefits people are depending on. so i worry a lot in the short-term about inappropriate cutbacks in government spending. i think we can make changes to put the debt on a more sustainable path but those changes are less urgent because interest rates are so low. last panel just finished with that point. i've written a paper coming out in the journal of economics perspective shortly about the implications of low interest rates for fiscal policy. number of possible explanations about low interest rates and they have somewhat different explanations for fiscal policy. on balance, they up -- imply it

not only did hawaii's federal judge block this but a second federal judge in maryland says this did notederal judge has blocked the president's new travel ban specifically section 2 of the new order that barred foreign nationals from six muslim majority countries from coming to the united states. and just like