>> the ferc project? >> yes. >> i would look to don on that. >> the don pedro is currently in stages -- two irrigation districts will file draft license applications and the final license application is filed in april. at that point, ferc will start to consider the kind of full requirements that might be required, but at this point it's really ditch to difficulty to say what is the potential hit on san francisco. >> is that owned by east bay mud? >> no don pedro is owned by turlock. the flood control obligation is transferred to the districts and also the city has the ability to pre-pay their water rights in advance and divert upstream. so it kind of acts as virtual storage for us. it's not storage we can divert out of reservoir, but allows us to operate the hetch hetchy project to increase your yield. >> the storage there is just for irrigation? >> that is correct. any water in don pedro is completely under control of the districts and pursuant to their water rights and not ours. >> commissioner moran? a

the pedro process is going through the ferc process and that is expected to come to completion in 2016 and obligations on the tulle river from san francisco. we have to deal with that issue in the future and we don't know what the answer to that is yet, but it's a risk out there. the state board water quality control plan for the bay delta, specifically on the san joaquin river is out in draft and 35% of unimpaired flow during january to june and that could impose a large obligation on san francisco. the way its written it's unclear, but it's a hit to the water supply that we would have to deal with and there is also the flow criteria for the delta ecosystem that the state board adopted as the result of the reform act of 2009 that calls for higher levels of unimpaired flows going down the riff. all of these regulatory items represent risk to us and that is something that we have to deal with and at some point some decisions may get made that will result in an impact to us. there is demand uncertainty. we're starting to see rebounding demand with the improving economy and the san franci

ferc of this year, 46%. more than double. not only that, this is a turbo charge story.tear labs is expected to pose 300%. they should be turning a profit. the stock exploded higher after tear lab reported on may 13th. the company booked 388 ore itself analysts expect 234. management told us they had tripled their manufacturing class. the company is ramping up their sales force, too. i still think we're in the early innings of tear lab's growth story. they have a game changing eye device for the eye business. there is nothing else out there like it. at the moment a couple analysts have the stock. as it rises, it should attract wall street promotion machine, which will send it higher still. that's how these tiny speculative growth stocks expect to work. in 12 months, i can see it up 43% from where it is now. never forget tear lab is for speculation only. you only use limit orders. when you buy, you don't put too much money in relative to the rest of your portfolio. it means you don't pay up at these levels. the market is coming down. the stock is a nickel and dime away fr

and ferc. so what we have to do is remove the d.o.e. from the process. remove this duplication. mr. speaker, we have enough oil, natural gas, and coal in america to make the middle east turmoil, middle east politics, and middle east energy irrelevant. if we would just use our own god-given natural resources. washington bureaucrats sit at their large oak desks sipping on those lattes every day and they are regulating american energy out of business. it's time to take the padlock off the marble palaces of the e.p.a. and d.o.e. and remove the bureaucrats from the energy business. let's use the resources the good lord has given us to take care of america. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. the struggle for equality, for justice, for freedom, for democracy is an awesome force. no force, no historical circ

they suggest the second quarter will be better than the ferc. revisions are a little unusual. we know how many people were working and we know kind of what kind of money they were earning. so the real question, you know, why on earth do you get a drop in the gdp numbers? unless you can answer that, you have to discount it a little bit. >> rick, you point to where the treasury is now, right around 2.5%. what down at the end of all of in, was this a quick knee-jerk reaction from the market? is this some sort of return to volatility? was this a reaction? did things calm down a bit? >> maybe i'm the wrong person to ask, i would say forget pretending the sit-coms are real people. let's look at the marketplace. i think it is trying to replies risk vs. reward, not in a voluntary fashion. i think that technical aspect gets overlooked as everybody gets so enamered with the demand met aspects of this kind of weekly serial of fed activity. as for our guests, how can you discount at more realistic measurement of first quarter gdp is beyond me. those are the

tightening the two-year notes sold off roughly 150 basis point sell-off in the two-year note in the ferc note the nominal note can't sell off t. feds told you, we will keep interest rates at zero the next two, three years t. two-year inflation-protected security, which is not managed by the federal reserve actually sold off 120 basis points over the past. >> so you are saying markets if they're not managed by the feds like this, that's the distortion of the market? >> you are beginning to see things move kin with the a complete removal of bad accommodation. that's what you are starting to see in the bond market. >> doug's our guest host. he will be with us the rest of the program. >> .42. i just watched, since we talked about it. it took that long, greenspan, we used to have it running much more frequently. >> right now is a moment to be watching the bond market. >> we need to put the ten year back up more frequently on the top. who does that? >> maybe on the buck on the bottom. >> i bet you by the end of the day. >> the yield is up. >> you need to put the market to market of the federal

we had a very slow ferc.iness groups have operating income above 20%. so it was a very sluggish forecast. >> so you missed consensus. >> consensus was missed. we don't give it quarterly guidance. what happened was the consumer electric eeelectronics part was a little slower. we knew as we went into the year, that the first half of the year will be tougher and slower and it worked out in that way. so i think the first part of the year will be slower. the second part accelerating. >> you think that's improving? >> yeah, we think so. it's announced we will improve. we saw early signs for it to happen. still the first half of the year will be as we have estimated as we brought in the plan for the year, which was a very cautious plan. >> the world economy right now? where do you see strengths? where do you see weaknesses? you can see so many parts of the world. >> first of all, we start in the occupation. we have loss growth in the first quarter. we continue to see growth and we estimate 2 to 5% growth in the u.s.

cost of market risk significantly reduces or eliminates the savings estimated for student loans under ferc la approach makerring student loans costly to the federal government in most years during the coming decade." so maybe you can pick a piece out that says, we make money off of this, but i'm not sure it says it any clearer than that, that it costs the american taxpayers money. and let me say, madam president i'm fine with subsidizing student loans. i'm not objecting to that. i didn't object to the president's proposal. i offered the president's proposal. and i'm sure the president is going to be shocked to find out it doesn't solve the problem because the secretary of education surely surely believes that it does. here is what i object to. i object to the fact that we're going to give some kids a preferred rate and we're going to sock it to the 61% of kids, parents, and post grads. why should they be denied the same rate? why only 39% are going to get a cut of 3.4%? why? because it's hard to do. it gives away a political tool. you see we're here today we're arguing this because of poli