thank you very much we're going to go into public comment madam chair mr. mr. chair if you don't mind. >> okay. we've opening open this up for public comment we have 5 public comment cards (calling names) richard weiner that's my father's name as well (calling names). >> thank you. the committee for letting me voice my opinion imi will want to talk about the technical presentations i can the t line from mariposa to embarcadero and this proposed line you've brought up are disconcerting i appreciate the intent to increase ridership i go from 10 authorize in the morning i board at mariposa so ridership coming from south of mariposa is dramatically increased in the last 3 years and similarly on the return trip it intermitted out for riders and now it's full to mariposa and south beyond that i know the proposed will increase the number of the railcars that will accommodate the growing ridership south of the given turn around. secondly, since 2002 there are 0 over one hundred and thirty residents directly from where it is proposed and none were there so those are dev

chair: pursuant to house resolution 677, the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. kilmer: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kilmer: thank you, madam chair. rise today as someone who went to college with the help of grants and loans and the support of a family and a community that had my back. and it's in that spirit that i rise today to offer an amendment designed to help students and borrowers get access to more information about sound financial practices. we know that financial literacy is important. it helps provide people with a road map for making sound financial decisions. to avoid or get out of debt. to prepare for emergencies. and to save for a brighter future. studies have found that 20-somethings have an average debt of $45,000. primarily from student loans, but also from car loans, mortgages and credit card debt. when the organization for economic cooperation and development provided an international financial literacy test, american students ranked below average. we need to do more to promote financ

chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to compliment the previous speaker on her color coordination, and as co-chair of the state medicaid expansion caucus, i rise this morning to talk about how important expanding medicaid is for my state and for the country. first, i want to thank my good friend from north carolina, congressman g.k. butterfield, for agreeing to co-chair this caucus. he's the driving force behind medicaid expansion, that portion of the affordable care act. there are few people in congress who understand this issue as well as g.k. does. and it's good that he agreed to work on this issue with me and i am proud that 33 members of this congress have joined the state medicaid expansion caucus. it is so critical that every state expand medicaid. medicaid expansion is a choice that states can make because of the supreme court's ruling. however, when the court struck down the requirement and gave states the choice to expand medicaid, it did not strike the facts that make medicaid expansion the correct bud

mr. barton, seek recognition? mr. barton: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. barton of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following -- mr. barton: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: madam chairman, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is eserved. pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, and a member five will each control minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: madam speaker, it's my intention at the end of this dialogue an amendment -- to withdraw it. i want the house to know that. but as we all know, we had the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 that stipulates it's the responsibility of the federal government through the department of energy to accept all high-level nuclear waste that's been generated by our civilian reactors. this has not been done eve

chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from ohio reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: madam speaker, -- madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: i yield to the gentleman from washington for purposes of a colloquy. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank you for restoring a portion of the administration's proposed cut to the richland operations office in my district. i appreciate your willingness to work with me on funding, and i know the provisions on yucca mountain and mocks in this bill that are also clean to hanford's cleanup success. the richland operations office is part of legal commitments and progress there has largely been a success. this represents a new model for cleanup and it has been successful. it's nearing completion and it saves the taxpayers $250 million. i'm encouraged that the $235 million in this bill provided for cleanup for the river corridor will focus on the 300 area milestones under the river corridor closure contract. as the appropriation process continues, i look forward to working with you to ensure appropriate restoration for richland given the budget constra

. >> madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us. >> month, mr. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> okay, good afternoon. welcome to our special rules commit toe meeting for thursday, july 10, 2014. i am supervisor yee and am joined by supervisor tang and tell ls. the committee would also like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv,

. >> madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us. >> month, mr. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> leaders. >> hi everyone i'm patrick the director of earthquake safety forever for the stoifbl and we have the ryan white fair to teach people about the made sure soft story ordinance and connect them with the services they need you can save thousands of lives and if those buildings are rooiftd people will be allowed to sleep in their own beds while the city is recovering. >> we're here at the earthquake ryan white center for people to comply with the ryan white or do a ryan white on their property to connect with the resources they need. i came here wondering what to do as a owner of an apartment building moderate to comply with the must rules that went into effect last year >> we don't want to go to 10 different events people said so we advise people of the event. so we try to be incentive not everyone is going to be able to come 0 so this fans the afternoon and the einstein >> i've decided to be here it's amaz

. >> madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us. >> month, mr. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> my very big pleasure to welcome i to the opening of our convention 2014 and this convention is carried by the person he is still trying to get the governor going both the room and co- organizer i want to welcome pat from the tv pod there. this conventions wouldn't have happened without our convention committee we have a convention and industrial committee 35 experts and they've done a fantastic job making the convention program possible bringing the colleagues to talk and i think we've experienced some of the session i thought they were full to capacity so we're very impressed we've got the interest i want thank the supporters first our close partner we just announced two days ago filed a agreement with cal sea they're our local partner (clapping.) thank you. and another close partner is the american society for solar energy they have a convention and i might say those among you from a excess please tell them th

chair: does any other member seek recognition on the point of order? mr. lamalfa: madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: i'd like the ruling in opposition to that. what we're talking about here does not change law. it changes nothing other than maintaining the direction we have. it's not requiring any action by the bureau or department of interior or any other government agency nor prejudicing anything by the court. simply keeping what we have in place in the contracts and the stability that is needed. so i think the point of order is invalid with what the intention of this amendment is. the chair: does any other member seek recognition on the point of order? the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination as to what constitutes resolution of a particular court case through decision. the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chai

. >> madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us. >> month, mr. >> no, mr. chair. >> thank you very much. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >> the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the neighborhood services & safety commission occurring july 17, 2014, will begin shortly. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to the thursday, july 17, 2014, meeting of the board of supervisors, neighborhood services and safety committee, my name is david campos and i am the chair of the committee and we are joined by the chair, eric mar, and committee member, supervisor, norman yee is en route, the clerk of the committee is derek evans and we want to thank the members of sfgtv staff who are recovering the meeting for us, jim smith and jessy larson. >> do we have any announcements. >> be sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices completed speaker cards to be submitted to the clerk and the items acted upon today will be appearing on the july 29th meeting. >> item one is a hearingconsider that the issuance of a type 42 on-sale beer and wine public prem

madam clerk, can you call item no. 2. city clerk: mr. chair, we've called items 1-3 together. >>supervisor norman yee: mr. richards, would you like to make a statement. >> supervisors, thank you for allowing me to be here today. this is the first

madam clerk, can you call item no. 2. city clerk: mr. chair, we've called items 1-3 together. >>supervisor norman yee: mr. richards, would you like to make a statement. >> supervisors, thank you for allowing me to be here today. this is the first time i'm able to serve. i would like to thank those that support me. the committee report i submitted today involves many great details. i began my work in the historic preservation at the time the sounding board was threatened and we are glad to see it's now part of the lgbt community center. and also served the time in the last economic boom on the community street services for dolores home and the housing for folks with hiv and aids. after that i served a little bit of time with supervisor leno on the task force and some issues that you are going to be hearing about today which reminds me about 14 years ago. i have been a member of the heritage for years. we reached help to get to under represented communities and getting more involved. i'm happy to say the work that my leader of heritage has done has really not only from a physical environment point of view b

mr. chairman. senator schumer. >> thank you mr. chairman and madam chair you have done a good job and make us proud and i am so glad to have these hearings. so, my first question deals with the most difficult issue as the fed chair the age-old balancing test between fighting inflation and going into full unemployment. it's a hard tightrope to walk particularly as the conditions change and we are now in the period of change. obviously the unemployment has declined thankfully and is beginning to pick up. it's not only to accelerate at the end of the quantitative easing and two raise the rates. i would urge caution very strongly. to me the greatest problem the country still faces his lack of good paying jobs in the middle-class incomes that is with us very strongly into the worldwide labor market still your state targeted 2% ten years ago people heard the target was to present and your predecessors chose what drop, but we are not even at that. so i did ask yo would ask you je very cautious before you taper the program to quickly and entertain the prospect of raising rates. >> i agree try to emphasize that while we are making progress in the labor market, we haven't achieved our goal. and it's also the case that inflation is running under the 2% objective. so, both of those facts plus the fact that those that have been substantial headwinds that were effectively overcoming them and making progress. it calls for an accommodated policy to offset that and i would say that even if you consider the forward guidance that we put in place in march, the committee indicated that even after we think the time has come to raise rates, we think that it will be some considerable time before we moved them back to historically low levels. that reflects different people have different views but in part it reflects the fact that the headwinds holding back the recovery to continue the productivity growth has been slow and we need to be cautious that the economy continues to recover. we have tried with respect to the asset purchases to set up a clear objective that we had to see a significant improvement in the labor market and to put in place the process by which reductions in the pace of the purchases would be deliberate and allow us time to assess how the economy is recovering and we followed i think a very deliberate course. this is not a preset course if we were to have the conditions that have changed significantly. >> i would like to just use each side of the question is my final question. we are seeing improvement in the job growth that we are still seeing declines in the income and middle-class incomes and lower incomes and what it means is the number of jobs created that really pay well isn't going quickly enough. the jobs are paying more quickly. how can the fed appeals with that and on the other side one of the things we worry about our bubbles. ththe queue e3 and others pushed the money to the corporate bondage stock market and i don't think they are there yet, but i hope you are considering ways to reduce the rate. can you comment on both sides of that? >> with respect to the wages, most measures of compensation have been running roughly in line with the gains and compensation prices or the real terms that have been nonexistent so the rising compensation or wage growth is one sign that the labor market is healing. we are not up but they are rising at a pace that they could rise to installation in fact, while wages have been rising less rapidly than the productivity growth and what we have seen is a shift in the distribution of the national income from the labor and the tort capital, so there is room for faster growth and wages and gains before we need to worry that is creating an overall inflationary pressure for the economy that is something that we are watching closely. with respect to the bubbles i've stated my strong preference is to use the macro prudential supervision policies to address areas where we see concerns and as i mentioned, we are doing that in the case of, for example, the leverage lending, but i would never take off the table totally the idea that the monetary policy might be needed to address financial stability concerns. i don't see financial stability concerns at a level at this point where they need to be the key determinant of the monetary policy. and it's not my preference as a first line of defense by any means but i would never want to take off the table that in some circumstances particularly if the macro prudential tools fail, the monetary policy might be called on to play the role that we are not there yet. >> thank you. >> senator. >> madam chair thank you for being here today. this is the third time that you have been before the committee wants as a nominee and now twice in the role as the chair. when you came to the committee last fall i was concerned about the lack of progress to deal with. i was then and still am concerned that the risk of quantitative easing outweighs the benefits. since that time i want to say to you i think you've moved in the right direction. in fact you have moved at a pace that maybe i did not anticipate. you are down to $35 billion per month. the reality is there is still a 4 trillion-dollar balance sheet which is concerning. there has been some defense starts with the fed in terms of tapering. so my question gets to this issue. what could have been enough period of time that would cause you to recount a great and decided that october is not the appropriate data may be the program should go on for a period of time. tell me what metrics you're looking at to make these judgments as you go along. >> well, the committee indicated that the path of purchases is not on a preset course and all along at each of the meetings where we have had to decide whether or not to cut the pace of the purchases or to stop that or even to increase purchases we've asked ourselves two questions. is the labor market continuing to improve or to retain confidence that the debate will continue to do so and to see evidence and that we will continue to move back towards the 2% objective overtime and at every one of the meetings since last december. guess we think the inflation stabilized. and yes we think the labor are dead will continue to improve. we will continue to see those conditions and i think the evidence that we are seeing is consistent with that and if he continues to see progress in the labor market as i expect and inflation stabilizing or moving up we would continue on the course and as i mentioned the purchases would cease after october tha we would see some vy significant change in the outlook that we see between now and october so now that we lost confidence. and it would move back up to 2% then we would have to rethink that plan but that is the plan. >> let me ask you a question i'm running out of time here about the labor market because i think that this is a very good concerning issue for the economy and for the country. .. carter was president many, many years. i don't know if that's you or me, but it's annoying. we haven't seen those kinds of numbers since jimmy carter was president. the fed has said that you'll look at the labor market. you just reiterated that in your origally iemed the it seemed like the benchmark you were trying to achieve was 6-1/2%. it's now 6.1%. but to me that doesn't tell the store h story. the fact our unemployment rate is 6.1% doesn't reflect the reality that really what is happening is people are taking part-time work, whether it's obamacare or some other reason. we could debate a long time. so tell me what you're looking for when you constantly refer to the labor market. are you looking for more participation, more full-time employment? what are you trying to achieve? i'm going to ask you to be brief. >> so, briefly, labor force participation has moved down. part of that, i believe, is an aging population and demographic. when we see diminished labor force participation among prime age men and women that suggests something is not just demographic, and so my personal view is that a portion of the decline in labor force participation we have seen is a kind of hidden slack or unemployment. it may be, if that's correct, that as the labor market strengthens, that labor force participation will remain flat. instead of the demographic trend continuing to pull it down, that people who have been discouraged come back into the labor force and start looking and getting jobs, we will see labor force participation rates flatten out and the unemployment rate may not come down as quickly as it has been, but we'll need to look at that. that's hypothesis. i do want to make clear, 6.5% has never been our objective at the labor force. what we said about 6.5 is that we would not --s long as inflation was not a concern, we would not think about raising the federal funds rate above the zero to a quarter percent range until unemployment had declined, at least below 6-1/2 percent. so that's never been our target, and 6.1% is not our target, either. participants in the fomc are asked, what they think a so-called full employment or normal longer run unemployment rate is, and in the monetary policy report we distributed in june, they thought that was 5.2 to 5.5%. but of course we don't know and we're looking at all the things you mentioned in judging the labor force. in judging the labor market, not just the unemployment rate but a broad range of indicators, including involuntary part-time employment as you mentioned, and broader metrics concerning the labor market. >> thank you, madam chair. >> senator menendez. >> thank you. you were quote it in a "newnewnw yorker" profile saying while the economy is improving, that, quote, the head winds are still there and even when the head winds have diminished to the point where the economy is back on track and where we want it to be, it's style going to require an unusually cooperative monetary policy. that was consistent with concern of economists outside of the fed, that it's producing an environment that requires lower than normal interest rates to generate economic growth and create jobs. can you explain to me what you mean about the need for, quote, unusually accommodative monetary policy and do you agree with the views being discussed by many that larry summers and others about lower than normal interest rate and the danger of tightening too soon. >> so, i mean, i do agree with the view that there are substantial head winds facing the economy. one example would be that we see in surveys of households that their expectations about their future finances and growth in their real incomes are exceptionally depressed, and i think that is a factor that is depressing spending. we see in the housing market where we had some progress but it now looks like it's stalled. a lock of credit -- a lack of credit availability for anyone who has anything other than a pristine credit rating i think remains a factor, and that's in many ways in complicated ways a legacy of what we have lived through. so, i think there are, fiscal policy has been a factor in my view, holding back the recovery, and that is what monetary policy has had to counteract, and that's in part why we needed such an accommodative monetary policy for so long. the economy is making progress. i do believe it's making progress, and eventually if we continue the day will come when it will be appropriate to begin to raise our target for the federal funds rate, but to the extent that even when the economy gets back on track, it doesn't mean that these head winds will have completely disappeared, and in addition to that, productivity growth is rather low. at least that may not be a permanent state of affairs but certainly something that we have seen in the aftermath, during most of the recovery. that's a factor that i think is suppressing business investment and we'll work for some time to hold interest rates down. these concerns and these factors aren't related to what economists are discussing, including stagnation. the committee -- when it thinks about what is normal in the longer run, the committee is recently slightly reduced their estimates of what will be normal in the longer run. it's the median room is around 3-3/4%. we don't know but it's the same factors that are making the committees feel that it would be appropriate to raise rates only gradually. there's some of the same factors that figure in the -- >> let me askon what the fed is doing. are there fiscal policy steps congress can take to reduce the head winds against growth? for example, we have interest rates at near historic lows, and construction employment still below the precrisis levels. for example, wouldn't it be time to invest in repairing our nation's transportation and other infrastructure as a way to help any such head winds? >> as i've said, fiscal policy for a number of years has been a drag on growth, and that is we can translate that into a factor that has necessitated lower than normal interest rates to get the economy moving back on track, and of course, it's a judgment for congress what the appropriate priorities are, but i would certainly say that fiscal policy has been unusually tight for a period like we have lived through. >> if i understand that, you don't want to dictate congress' priorities are, but enough fact congress were to say, well, investing in significantly robust in our transportation infrastructure and other similar infrastructure projects, would that be something that would help against the head winds? >> well, certainly it would be a counter to the head winds, yes. >> thank you. >> senator heller. >> thank you for holding this particular hearing, and chairman, thank you for being here. i apologized. i haven't been here for all the questioning. the ranking member and myself are running back and forth to the energy committee talking about fire suppression. i'm not blaming you for the fires out west. so we can take that question off the table. i know you do take a lot of blame, and i just want to thank you for taking time. you said in your opening remarks that the recovery is not complete from the great recession. and we have had a lot of lively debates here in this committee of the soundness and the safety of our market structures. we even had a hearing last week on high-frequent trading. some are going so far to claim that markets perhaps are rigged. if you talk to individuals five yours ago in 2008, told them we're going to five years through a great recession and in that five-year period you'll see the stock market go from 6500 to 17,000, not too many people would have believed that. the question, books are being written about this, visiteds are now going as far as to claim the markets are rigged. i want to get your feelings. do you believe the stock markets are rigged? >> well, i think there are a number of concerns that have been outlined about high frequency trading, and i believe it was in june the chair of the sec gave a very important and very detailed discussion of high-frequency trading, outlining where she saw problems, at what potential solutions might be to those problems. >> the -- do you believe that unintended consequences of qe1, 2 and 3, may be, with all the bond buying, it's forcing people into the stock market, creating the bubble? >> well, i think it an environment of low interest rates in general, which have been promoted by our -- both our keeping the federal funds rate at zero and additionally by our purchases, low rates do have an incentive to push individuals to look for yield, to reach for yield and that's both a good thing and a bad thing. on the one hand we need handcuffsy risk-taking in order to spur a recovery. and low interest rates, i think, have had a positive effect on helping the recovery, but of course, we have to be careful about looking for situations where low rates may be innocent tough behavior that might be dangerous to financial stability, and i particularlyout lined in my remarks an area like leverage lending where we're seeing a marked deterioration in underwriting standards and may be part of a reach for yield and we're trying to deal with that through supervisory means. but the kind of broad-based increase in leverage in the economy and maturity transformation and credit growth that one tends to see in this situation with your intense financial stability risks, i don't think we see those things. so, at this point, they're more isolated and not broad-based in general. at least in my assessment. >> thank you, dr. yellen. go back to senator johan's questions on quantitative easing and may ask a little differently. you see a time when the federal reserve stops the bond-buying program? >> well, as i indicated in my opening remarks, if things continue on the current course, and as the committee expects, the purchases would cease after october meeting. >> so if they cease, do you see -- i guess my question today would be, would you ever see the restarting of quanity tatetive easing -- quantitative easing? is this a new normal, the federal government buys the bond or would you commit to saying quantitative easing has come and gone and we've seen the last of it? >> really depends on what the economy does. the economic outlook is very uncertain. i hope we're on a solid course of recovery, and that it will continue and not encounter some serious setback. i wouldn't take it off the table forever as a tool the federal reserve might need to some day in some circumstances use again, but my hope is we're on a path of recovery, and monetary policy will over time normalize that our purchases will end e, eventually our balance sheet will shrink back 0 a normal side, and when the time is right, that short-term interest rates will move above their current very, very low levels. >> dr. yellen, thank you. mr, thank you. >> senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chair, thank you for being here. these hearings often focus on when the fed will change its policies so financial markets will rally and wall street lenders can make money. too often we forget about the human side of these issues. as federal reserve chair you have worked to put a face on economic numbers. we appreciate that. last february you spoke of the toll on unemployed workers, quote, being simply terrible on the mental health of workers, on their marriages and children. it seems too many people around here still view unemployed workers as lazy, shiftless people who do not really want to work, and so we simply don't stepped -- extend programs like unemployment insurance. talk about the psychological effects that unemployment has on workers, why the psychology is so important, why it should matter to us, even a senator who goes to work in a suit every day and speaks with an upper class accent. >> well, i think many wo

madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. weber. i'm pleased to yield to our new member of our committee, mr. claassen of florida. >> those from camp liberty, thank you for coming. you've made your point with the newest congressperson here. the two of you, thank you for coming. and thank you for your service to our country. and i'm sure this is not an easy moment for you. it's never easy to be at the point of the spear in this kind of situation. so i respect you for coming and speaking straight and ask you to speak straight to me too. to use your words, mr. mcgurk, there are some hard realities here, right? i cannot overestimate those realities, people are dying. and these are people that don't deserve to die. and we've been there for a while. it feels like a perilous situation to me as our enemies consolidate friends, allies, and territory, which will certainly some day threaten our friends, israel, and maybe even us, if i'm getting the drift of what's going on here as the newcomer. and in that backdrop, it feels like we have bet on a team that is divided, right, maybe artificially put toget

mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas who chairs the homeland security committee of the house, mr. mccaul of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the tchimplee appropriations committee for his hard work and chairman kay granger for heading up this task force i was happy to be part of. as a former federal prosecutor who has dealt with border security for many years, i have never seen a crisis quite like this one this crisis demands action and leadership. it demands a solution to the problem. daca the president enacted in 2012, we've seen 60,000 unaccompanied children cross the border in the rio grande valley sector of texas alone, 250 per day. we went down there to see these children. these children are the victims caught between the administration's policies and the coyotes and the traffickers who exploit them and make money, between $5,000 to $10,000 apiece. madam speaker, this bill fixes that crisis. first and foremost it changes the 2008 trafficking law as a message of deterrence. this crisis will not stop until we start sending them back. and all this does is treat central americans the same way we treat me

mr. shuster, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shuster: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. shuster: thank you, madam speaker. we have an immediate critical need to address the solvency of the trust fund and extend the current surface transportation law. if congress fails to act, thousands of transportation projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country will be at risk. two weeks ago the house acted and passed h.r. 5021, the highway, transportation funding act of 2014. this important legislation extends federal surface transportation programs, ensures the insolvency of the highway trust fund through may of 2015 and provides certainty. the house overwhelmingly passed h.r. 5021, wh

chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, rarnging member of our oversight investigation subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning, madam chair. and welcome again to the committ committee. i have three questions, each of which could easily consume five minutes of your time. and i do not believe that i'll get through all three, but time. but i will ask if possible that you give a laconic answer to each. you used the term headwinds, unusual headwinds. can you describe some of those? >> tight fiscal policy is one of them. there was stimulus in the last few years, but more recent policy trying to reduce deficits has created drag on economic growth. that's unusual in times like these. and the system of housing finance and the willingness of residential mortgage lends to provide credit, the standards should have escalated, they have escalated. but now, any borrower without a pristine credit rating finds it hard to get a mortgage. and there are a number of reasons for it. but i think that's a headwind. so, credit availability for some purposes i think is diminished relative to historical norms. and we also see that households

chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks for a minute-and-a-half. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. chair yellen it's with great pleasure we welcome you here again this morning. i want to extend my deep appreciation to you and your staff for the significant amount of time you have spent on the hill and welcoming congressional staffers at the federal reserve. that's tremendously important. i too was listening to some of your testimony yesterday before the senate banking committee. and you mentioned that the united states labor markets are far from healthy. i applaud your remarks and i think that you're absolutely right. the latest data from the bureau of economic analysis show americans personal income is barely growing at a tepid rate of only 0.3%. in fact other reports indicate that the american real wages are still lower than before the crisis. members of this chamber are closest to the american people who we represent in congress. i can assure you we hear loudly and clearly from them they are not feeling this recovery. in fact, when preparing for this hearing i took to social medi

mr. perry of pennsylvania. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. mcgurk, in violation of u.s. and u.n. security council, what support is the maliki government receiving from iran that you know of? >> the question of sanctions under those provisions is something we're looking at very closely. it's a very complicated question, actually. >> all right. well, then just tell me what kind of material support you know of and then we'll try and figure it out from there. >> it's another question i think i'd like to follow up with you in a closed session. >> all right. ms. slotkin, do you know? >> sir, i really do think in a closed session we can much more specifically answer your question. >> all right. i get your point. well, knowing that iran is supporting the insurgency in yemen, is the yemen model sponsored in some sort by the president, is that realistic or viable for iraq? didn't that -- isn't that fairly complica complicated, knowing that iran is essentially an adversary, an enemy of the united states that we're barely working with on a treaty regarding their nuclear program, which many americans, myself included, disagree with? what position do we put ourse ourselves in, and how can we move toward trusting the maliki government, knowing they're r y relying on iran? can we expect the folks in the camp to receive better treatment knowing the government is the collaborating with iran? >> so i would say -- i want to make sure i understand your question about the yemen model and whether -- it seems like you're implying that the iraqi government is completely under the sway of the iranians. >> no, i don't think it's completely under the sway. i think that considering the yemen model is viable and iraq is myopic and irresponsible and knowing that we're working at cross purposes, even mentioning that is kind of indicates cluelessness at the point of the administration, in my estimation. i just want to get your feeling on it. >> again, i'm not -- i'm sorry. i'm not sure i'm completely understanding your question. if the question is, could the yemen model work in iraq, if that is what you're asking -- >> is it viable? could it work? yeah, it could work if we had different people in iraq in power and a different circumstance, in my opinion. but that's not the circumstance. so is it viable now? do you see the yemen model as viable now in iraq? >> i think, if i understand what you mean by yemen model, meaning working very closely with the central government -- >> yes. >> -- on a program, i think that first of all right now we are working with the iraqis on the ground. we have people there that -- our own people that need security and we rely on the iraqis to provide part of that security. i think what we're trying to figure out is the answer to that question. by sending folks out and understanding the iraqi security forces and whether they are a viable -- >> seems a little irresponsible to come out with those kind of statements with hen you're tryio understand the circumstances. but moving on. so japan and germany essentially defeated by coalition forces, including the united states, probably didn't want us to stay, if they would have had their choice. i wasn't around then. i suspect you weren't either. let me ask you this. what responsibility does the administration have, understanding they disagreed with the united states government's actions in iraq, and i'm respecting that, but what responsibility do they have to secure the gains of the previous or any administration? do they have any? it's an opinion question for you. >> do the iraqis have a -- >> no, what is our administration -- >> what is our responsibility? i mean -- >> do we have any? >> i mean, we have invested incredible amounts of blood and treasure. my husband is an army officer. we met in iraq. as a country, we have invested so significantly in that country, so of course we are invested in making sure that it continues as a viable state and doesn't become a breeding ground for terrorists. >> so having spent time there as i did, do you believe circumstances on the ground would be different had we maintained a s.o.f.a.? using the excuse -- and i see it as an excuse -- that the government couldn't get itself together enough to get support if it, we get that. they didn't want us there. that's a big surprise. didn't we have some responsibility to make sure it happened? i mean, the president's got a pen and a phone. if he'd have said, we're staying, what are you going to do about it? would things be different? do you think things would be different now if we would have stayed in some fashion, providing some security prorks vieding some intelligence, providing some oversight of a fledgling government in a very difficult circumstance that we earned a victory for and literally almost installed piece by piece? >> i think that things may have been different, but i don't know that we wouldn't be in a similar situation to where we are today based on the fact that we still lack political accommodation at the heart of it in baghdad. >> thank you very much, mr. perry. we turn to mr. weber of texas. >> thank you. mr. mcgurk, you said, quote, our objective is to ensure that isil can never again gain safe haven in western iraq, end quote. in your opinion, has isil, isis, whatever we want to call them, today operated with lightning speed? >> depends how you characterize lightning speed, congressman. >> in your opinion, would you characterize that as lightning speed? >> their advance through mosul caught them off guard, frankly. >> so baghdad, you cough taught something about blitz kreeg, wouldn't you agree? >> again, not sure quite how to answer that question. >> okay. >> isil's proven to be very capable. >> you remember how ted deutsch asked you today, how confident are you the shiites can withstand repeated attacks? in your exchange with him, do you remember that question? >> i believe so, yes. >> okay. here's my question for you. how confident are you that camp liberty can withstand more attacks? >> again, i want to mention i visited camp li

mr. perry of pennsylvania. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. mcgurk, in violation of u.s. and u.n. security council, what support is the maliki government receiving from iran that you know of? >> the question of sanctions under those provisions is something we're looking at very closely. it's a very complicated question, actually. >> all right. well, then just tell me what kind of material support you know of and then we'll try and figure it out from there. >> it's another question i think i'd like to follow up with you in a closed session. >> all right. ms. slotkin, do you know? >> sir, i really do think in a closed session we can much more specifically answer your question. >> all right. i get your point. well, knowing that iran is supporting the insurgency in yemen, is the yemen model sponsored in some sort by the president, is that realistic or viable for iraq? didn't that -- isn't that fairly complica complicated, knowing that iran is essentially an adversary, an enemy of the united states that we're barely working with on a treaty regarding their nuclear program, which many americans, myself included, disagree with? what position do we put ourse ourselves in, and how can we move toward trusting the maliki government, knowing they're r y relying on iran? can we expect the folks in the camp to receive better treatment knowing the government is the collaborating with iran? >> so i would say -- i want to make sure i understand your question about the yemen model and whether -- it seems like you're implying that the iraqi government is completely under the sway of the iranians. >> no, i don't think it's completely under the sway. i think that considering the yemen model is viable and iraq is myopic and irresponsible and knowing that we're working at cross purposes, even mentioning that is kind of indicates cluelessness at the point of the administration, in my estimation. i just want to get your feeling on it. >> again, i'm not -- i'm sorry. i'm not sure i'm completely understanding your question. if the question is, could the yemen model work in iraq, if that is what you're asking -- >> is it viable? could it work? yeah, it could work if we had different people in iraq in power and a different circumstance, in my opinion. but that's not the circumstance. so is it viable now? do you see the yemen model as viable now in iraq? >> i think, if i understand what you mean by yemen model, meaning working very closely with the central government -- >> yes. >> -- on a program, i think that first of all right now we are working with the iraqis on the ground. we have people there that -- our own people that need security and we rely on the iraqis to provide part of that security. i think what we're trying to figure out is the answer to that question. by sending folks out and understanding the iraqi security forces and whether they are a viable -- >> seems a little irresponsible to come out with those kind of statements with hen you're tryio understand the circumstances. but moving on. so japan and germany essentially defeated by coalition forces, including the united states, probably didn't want us to stay, if they would have had their choice. i wasn't around then. i suspect you weren't either. let me ask you this. what responsibility does the administration have, understanding they disagreed with the united states government's actions in iraq, and i'm respecting that, but what responsibility do they have to secure the gains of the previous or any administration? do they have any? it's an opinion question for you. >> do the iraqis have a -- >> no, what is our administration -- >> what is our responsibility? i mean -- >> do we have any? >> i mean, we have invested incredible amounts of blood and treasure. my husband is an army officer. we met in iraq. as a country, we have invested so significantly in that country, so of course we are invested in making sure that it continues as a viable state and doesn't become a breeding ground for terrorists. >> so having spent time there as i did, do you believe circumstances on the ground would be different had we maintained a s.o.f.a.? using the excuse -- and i see it as an excuse -- that the government couldn't get itself together enough to get support if it, we get that. they didn't want us there. that's a big surprise. didn't we have some responsibility to make sure it happened? i mean, the president's got a pen and a phone. if he'd have said, we're staying, what are you going to do about it? would things be different? do you think things would be different now if we would have stayed in some fashion, providing some security prorks vieding some intelligence, providing some oversight of a fledgling government in a very difficult circumstance that we earned a victory for and literally almost installed piece by piece? >> i think that things may have been different, but i don't know that we wouldn't be in a similar situation to where we are today based on the fact that we still lack political accommodation at the heart of it in baghdad. >> thank you very much, mr. perry. we turn to mr. weber of texas. >> thank you. mr. mcgurk, you said, quote, our objective is to ensure that isil can never again gain safe haven in western iraq, end quote. in your opinion, has isil, isis, whatever we want to call them, today operated with lightning speed? >> depends how you characterize lightning speed, congressman. >> in your opinion, would you characterize that as lightning speed? >> their advance through mosul caught them off guard, frankly. >> so baghdad, you cough taught something about blitz kreeg, wouldn't you agree? >> again, not sure quite how to answer that question. >> okay. >> isil's proven to be very capable. >> you remember how ted deutsch asked you today, how confident are you the shiites can withstand repeated attacks? in your exchange with him, do you remember that question? >> i believe so, yes. >> okay. here's my question for you. how confident are you that camp liberty can withstand more attacks? >> again, i want to mention i visited camp li

mr. hatch: did the chair rule? the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. mr. hatch: madam chairman -- mr. murphy: would the legislation modify the request to allow senator bennet to alternate with one of the republican speakers in this series of remarks? mr. hatch: i was supposed to speak here at 2:15. mr. murphy: i'll withdraw my request for modification. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, i've come to the floor to discuss some of the issues that related to the health care law, and the side effects of the health care law, and i see my friend and colleague who has just spoken on this issue from the state of connecticut, a place where i spent five years as part of my residency program, training, so i followed the developments in that state quite a bit and talked to many of the physicians who practice there on a regular basis, some of whom i've studied with for up to five years. so they've routinely sent me articles about the failure of the president's h

chair and would yield the floor. mr. kaine: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i rise to introduce the educating tomorrow's workforce act of 2014. this is a bipartisan bill with senator portman who will follow me on the floor today. senator portman and i are working together as cochairs of the senate career and technical education caucus. let me first just explain why career and technical education is important to me. i grew up in a household in kansas city where my dad ran a union-organized iron working shop. he was the owner. ironworkers and welders, in a good year eight employees. in a bad year, five employees. my mother and my brothers and i worked in my dad's shop. and i came to appreciate working in that iron working shop, the tremendous craftsmanship and skill that went into being an ironworker. and that lesson has stuck with me for the rest of my life. and i really credit my dad with my work ethic. in a manufacturing welding shop you get to work early because you want to get the work done before it gets too hot in the middle of the day. i had the

mr. chairman. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. you've done a very good job. you make brooklyn proud. i'm so glad to have these hearings. i've been sitting at humphrey hawkins hearings since 1981 in the house and senate. they are very elucidating. my first question deals with probably your most difficult issue as fed chair, the anal-old balancing test between fighting inflation and going to full employment. it's a hard tight rope to walk, particularly as conditions change. we are now in a period of change. obviously, unemployment declined, thankfully. obviously, the economy is beginning to pick up. as a result there's a lot of pressure coming from many for you to not only accelerate the end of qe-2 quantitative easing and to raise rates. i would urge caution very strongly. to me the greatest problem this country still faces is lack of good-paying jobs, decline of middle class incomes. that's with us very, very strongly. worldwide labor markets still keep a lid on inflation. your stated target of 2% ten years ago, if people heard the stated target was 2%, your predecessors, their jaws would drop, but we're not even at that. i would just ask you to be very cautious before you taper the qe-3 program too quickly and entertain the prospect of raising rates. could you comment? >> yes. so i certainly agree and tried to emphasize while we are making progress in the labor market, we haven't achieved our goal. it's also the case that inflation is running under our 2% objective. so both of those facts plus the fact that there have been substantial head winds holding the recovery back, and those head winds, while we are effectively overcoming them and making progress, until they are completely gone, it calls for an accommodative monetary policy to offset that. i would say even if you consider our forward guidance we put in place in march, the committee indicated that even after we think the time has come to raise rates, that we think it will be some considerable time before we move them back to historically normal levels. that reflects, well different people have different views, but to my mind it, in part, reflects the fact head winds holding back the recovery do continue. productivity growth has been slow. of course, we need to be cautious to make sure the economy continues to recover. we have tried with respect to our asset purchases to set out a clear objective that we had to see a significant improvement in the outlook for the labor market. to put in place a process by which reductions in the pace of our purchases would be measured, deliberate and allow us time to assess how the economy is recovering and we followed, i think, a very deliberate course. so i also emphasize this is not a preset course. if we were to judge the conditions had changed significantly, it's not locked in stone. >> thank you. i'm glad and somewhat relieved to hear. i know there are pressures. i would like to tease each side of that question. we are seeing improvement in job growth and seeing declines in medium income and middle class incomes and lower incomes. what it means is the number of jobs created that really pay well isn't growing quickly enough. poor paying jobs are growing more quickly. how can the fed, if in any way deal with that. on the other side one of the things you worry about are bubbles. qe-3 pushed a lot of money into corporate bonds, the stock market. i don't think there are bubbles there yet. but i hope you are considering ways to reduce the possibility of bubbles without wholesale increases in rates. can you comment on both sides of that? >> well, with respect to wages, most measures of compensation have been running roughly in line with inflation so that real gains in compensation adjusted for prices or in real terms have been nonexistent. so while rising compensation or wage growth is one sign that the labor market is healing, we are not even at the point where wages are rising at a pace that they could give rise to inflation. in fact, real wages have been rising less rapidly than productivity growth and what we've seen is a shift in the distribution of national income away from labor and toward capital. so there is some room there for faster growth in wages and for real wage gains before we need to worry that's creating overall inflationary pressure for the economy. that's something we are watching closely. with respect to bubbles, i've stated my strong preferences to use macroprudential and supervision policies to address areas where we see concerns. as i mentioned, we are doing that in the face of, for example, leveraged lending. but i would never take off the table totally the idea that monetary policy might be needed to address financial stability concerns. to me, i don't see financial stability concerns at the level at this point where they need to be a key determinant of monetary policy. it's not my preference as a first line of defense by any means, but i would never want to take off the table that in some circumstances, particularly if macro-prudential tools failed monetary policy might be called on to play a role, but we're not there. >> thank you. >> senator johans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chair thank you for being here today. this is the first time you've been before the committee. one as nominee, now twice as role in chair. when you came to the committee last fall i was concerned about the lack of progress to deal with the $4 trillion balance sheet. i worry that the risk of quantitative easing outweighs the benefits. since that time, i want to say to you, i think you've moved in the right direction. in fact, you've moved at a pace that maybe i did not anticipate. you're down to $35 billion per month. but the reality is there is still a $4 trillion balance sheet out there, which is concerning. in your testimony you speak of your concerns about false dawns. there's been some fits and starts with the fed in terms of tapering. so my question gets to this issue. you're anticipating that by october this program will cease, come to an end. what could happen in that period of time that would cause you to recalibrate and decide that october is not the appropri

mr. chairman. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. you've done a very good job. you make brooklyn proud. i'm so glad to have these hearings. i've been sitting at humphrey hawkins hearings since 1981 in the house and senate. they are very elucidating. my first question deals with probably your most difficult issue as fed chair, the anal-old balancing test between fighting inflation and going to full employment. it's a hard tight rope to walk, particularly as conditions change. we are now in a period of change. obviously, unemployment declined, thankfully. obviously, the economy is beginning to pick up. as a result there's a lot of pressure coming from many for you to not only accelerate the end of qe-2 quantitative easing and to raise rates. i would urge caution very strongly. to me the greatest problem this country still faces is lack of good-paying jobs, decline of middle class incomes. that's with us very, very strongly. worldwide labor markets still keep a lid on inflation. your stated target of 2% ten years ago, if people heard the stated target was 2%, your predecessors, their jaws would drop, but we're not even at that. i would just ask you to be very cautious before you taper the qe-3 program too quickly and entertain the prospect of raising rates. could you comment? >> yes. so i certainly agree and tried to emphasize while we are making progress in the labor market, we haven't achieved our goal. it's also the case that inflation is running under our 2% objective. so both of those facts plus the fact that there have been substantial head winds holding the recovery back, and those head winds, while we are effectively overcoming them and making progress, until they are completely gone, it calls for an accommodative monetary policy to offset that. i would say even if you consider our forward guidance we put in place in march, the committee indicated that even after we think the time has come to raise rates, that we think it will be some considerable time before we move them back to historically normal levels. that reflects, well different people have different views, but to my mind it, in part, reflects the fact head winds holding back the recovery do continue. productivity growth has been slow. of course, we need to be cautious to make sure the economy continues to recover. we have tried with respect to our asset purchases to set out a clear objective that we had to see a significant improvement in the outlook for the labor market. to put in place a process by which reductions in the pace of our purchases would be measured, deliberate and allow us time to assess how the economy is recovering and we followed, i think, a very deliberate course. so i also emphasize this is not a preset course. if we were to judge the conditions had changed significantly, it's not locked in stone. >> thank you. i'm glad and somewhat relieved to hear. i know there are pressures. i would like to tease each side of that question. we are seeing improvement in job growth and seeing declines in medium income and middle class incomes and lower incomes. what it means is the number of jobs created that really pay well isn't growing quickly enough. poor paying jobs are growing more quickly. how can the fed, if in any way deal with that. on the other side one of the things you worry about are bubbles. qe-3 pushed a lot of money into corporate bonds, the stock market. i don't think there are bubbles there yet. but i hope you are considering ways to reduce the possibility of bubbles without wholesale increases in rates. can you comment on both sides of that? >> well, with respect to wages, most measures of compensation have been running roughly in line with inflation so that real gains in compensation adjusted for prices or in real terms have been nonexistent. so while rising compensation or wage growth is one sign that the labor market is healing, we are not even at the point where wages are rising at a pace that they could give rise to inflation. in fact, real wages have been rising less rapidly than productivity growth and what we've seen is a shift in the distribution of national income away from labor and toward capital. so there is some room there for faster growth in wages and for real wage gains before we need to worry that's creating overall inflationary pressure for the economy. that's something we are watching closely. with respect to bubbles, i've stated my strong preferences to use macroprudential and supervision policies to address areas where we see concerns. as i mentioned, we are doing that in the face of, for example, leveraged lending. but i would never take off the table totally the idea that monetary policy might be needed to address financial stability concerns. to me, i don't see financial stability concerns at the level at this point where they need to be a key determinant of monetary policy. it's not my preference as a first line of defense by any means, but i would never want to take off the table that in some circumstances, particularly if macro-prudential tools failed monetary policy might be called on to play a role, but we're not there. >> thank you. >> senator johans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chair thank you for being here today. this is the first time you've been before the committee. one as nominee, now twice as role in chair. when you came to the committee last fall i was concerned about the lack of progress to deal with the $4 trillion balance sheet. i worry that the risk of quantitative easing outweighs the benefits. since that time, i want to say to you, i think you've moved in the right direction. in fact, you've moved at a pace that maybe i did not anticipate. you're down to $35 billion per month. but the reality is there is still a $4 trillion balance sheet out there, which is concerning. in your testimony you speak of your concerns about false dawns. there's been some fits and starts with the fed in terms of tapering. so my question gets to this issue. you're anticipating that by october this program will cease, come to an end. what could happen in that period of time that would cause you to recalibrate and decide that october is not the appropri

mr. simpson: it is now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. weber: thank you, madam chair. i rise -- thank you, gentleman, for yielding. i rise to engage in a colloquy with chairman simpson. i thank the chairman for including language in the committee's report which would require that the army corps of engineers also look to strategy seaport designations when allocating funding for additional work. however, the president's budget for f.y. 2015 proposes to cut the maintenance budget for the sabean natchest waterway by 35% over last year. no other area of the country, i have been able to identify, have seen such a dramatic cut to their resources in the president's budget. this does not make sense. the waterway is located between texas and louisiana and responsible for the third highest tonnage volume of foreign trade in the nation and supplies 55% of our nation's strategic petroleum reserve. 0% of our nation's commerce jet fuel. and a significant majority of our military's jet fuel. it's also used by the u.s. military to transport cargo to and from overseas employments

mr. chairman. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. you've done a very good job. you make brooklyn proud. i'm so glad to have these hearings. i've been sitting at humphrey hawkins hearings since 1981 in the house and senate. they are very elucidating. my first question deals with probably your most difficult issue as fed chair, the anal-old balancing test between fighting inflation and going to full employment. it's a hard tight rope to walk, particularly as conditions change. we are now in a period of change. obviously, unemployment declined, thankfully. obviously, the economy is beginning to pick up. as a result there's a lot of pressure coming from many for you to not only accelerate the end of qe-2 quantitative easing and to raise rates. i would urge caution very strongly. to me the greatest problem this country still faces is lack of good-paying jobs, decline of middle class incomes. that's with us very, very strongly. worldwide labor markets still keep a lid on inflation. your stated target of 2% ten years ago, if people heard the stated target was 2%, your predecessors, their jaws would drop, but we're not even at that. i would just ask you to be very cautious before you taper the qe-3 program too quickly and entertain the prospect of raising rates. could you comment? >> yes. so i certainly agree and tried to emphasize while we are making progress in the labor market, we haven't achieved our goal. it's also the case that inflation is running under our 2% objective. so both of those facts plus the fact that there have been substantial head winds holding the recovery back, and those head winds, while we are effectively overcoming them and making progress, until they are completely gone, it calls for an accommodative monetary policy to offset that. i would say even if you consider our forward guidance we put in place in march, the committee indicated that even after we think the time has come to raise rates, that we think it will be some considerable time before we move them back to historically normal levels. that reflects, well different people have different views, but to my mind it, in part, reflects the fact head winds holding back the recovery do continue. productivity growth has been slow. of course, we need to be cautious to make sure the economy continues to recover. we have tried with respect to our asset purchases to set out a clear objective that we had to see a significant improvement in the outlook for the labor market. to put in place a process by which reductions in the pace of our purchases would be measured, deliberate and allow us time to assess how the economy is recovering and we followed, i think, a very deliberate course. so i also emphasize this is not a preset course. if we were to judge the conditions had changed significantly, it's not locked in stone. >> thank you. i'm glad and somewhat relieved to hear. i know there are pressures. i would like to tease each side of that question. we are seeing improvement in job growth and seeing declines in medium income and middle class incomes and lower incomes. what it means is the number of jobs created that really pay well isn't growing quickly enough. poor paying jobs are growing more quickly. how can the fed, if in any way deal with that. on the other side one of the things you worry about are bubbles. qe-3 pushed a lot of money into corporate bonds, the stock market. i don't think there are bubbles there yet. but i hope you are considering ways to reduce the possibility of bubbles without wholesale increases in rates. can you comment on both sides of that? >> well, with respect to wages, most measures of compensation have been running roughly in line with inflation so that real gains in compensation adjusted for prices or in real terms have been nonexistent. so while rising compensation or wage growth is one sign that the labor market is healing, we are not even at the point where wages are rising at a pace that they could give rise to inflation. in fact, real wages have been rising less rapidly than productivity growth and what we've seen is a shift in the distribution of national income away from labor and toward capital. so there is some room there for faster growth in wages and for real wage gains before we need to worry that's creating overall inflationary pressure for the economy. that's something we are watching closely. with respect to bubbles, i've stated my strong preferences to use macroprudential and supervision policies to address areas where we see concerns. as i mentioned, we are doing that in the face of, for example, leveraged lending. but i would never take off the table totally the idea that monetary policy might be needed to address financial stability concerns. to me, i don't see financial stability concerns at the level at this point where they need to be a key determinant of monetary policy. it's not my preference as a first line of defense by any means, but i would never want to take off the table that in some circumstances, particularly if macro-prudential tools failed monetary policy might be called on to play a role, but we're not there. >> thank you. >> senator johans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chair thank you for being here today. this is the first time you've been before the committee. one as nominee, now twice as role in chair. when you came to the committee last fall i was concerned about the lack of progress to deal with the $4 trillion balance sheet. i worry that the risk of quantitative easing outweighs the benefits. since that time, i want to say to you, i think you've moved in the right direction. in fact, you've moved at a pace that maybe i did not anticipate. you're down to $35 billion per month. but the reality is there is still a $4 trillion balance sheet out there, which is concerning. in your testimony you speak of your concerns about false dawns. there's been some fits and starts with the fed in terms of tapering. so my question gets to this issue. you're anticipating that by october this program will cease, come to an end. what could happen in that period of time that would cause you to recalibrate and decide that october is not the appropri

chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2244, cited as the television risk insurance program re-authorization act of 2014, in which the concurrence of the ouse is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. the federal aviation administration has warned u.s. pilots earlier this year not to fly over portions of ukraine because of tensions in the region. some congressional reaction to the down line on twitter today. -- new jersey republican >> house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi today held their weekly briefings with reporters. to show you both of those next, here

mr. deutch. now i'm pleased to recognize in the order of when they came in, mr. schneider of illinois. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair, and i am very proud to join today and strongly rise to speak in support of both h. con. res. 107, condemning hamas' use of human shields, and h. res 665, condemning the murder of the four young people last month. speaking first to the human shield. in the nine years since israel withdrew completely from gaza, evacuating 9000 israelis, hamas and other groups in gaza have launched overnight thousand rockets. this month alone over 2000 rockets intended to kill civilians and terrorize virtually every israeli city, town and village have been launched from gaza. thankfully israel develop with the support of the congress and the american people the iron dome defense system, changing the calculus on the ground. israel is doing all they can to protect her citizens from hamas rockets. conversely, hamas is using the people of gaza to protect their rockets and rocket launchers. i fully support israel's right to defend her citizens come to do what is necessary to eliminate the threat of rockets at the threat of a terror tunnels dug under the ground into israeli territory. this resolution condemning the use of human shields clearly in violation of international humanitarian law is a strong statement that human shields cannot be used and israel must be allowed to defend herself. hamas is a terrorist organization. hamas must be prohibited from using rockets to terrorize israel come and human shields to defend those rockets. let me also speak to the resolution condemning the callous murder of use, whether it is boys named naftali frenkel, gilad shaar, eyal yifrach or poisonings turned a bit the murder of mohammad, israel story quickly condemned the murder of the young man, arrested and are prosecuting the perpetrators. as i stood before, to murderers believed to have killed the three young israelis remain at large and too many people are unwilling to condemn the murder of mohammed abud khdeir. we stand together in support of the families here we stand, i stand in sport is a fight to defend herself and i'm proud to stand in support both of these resolutions. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. schneider. mr. chabot of ohio is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to express my support for both resolutions being considered this morning, h. res 665 condemning the murder of israeli and palestinian children, and the ongoing and escalate violence in the country, and h. con. res. 107 denouncing the use of civilians as human shields by hamas and other terrorist organizations in violation of international humanitarian law and i spent the want to express my strong support for israel's right to defend territory from attacks by the hamas terrorist. since the start of operation protective edge, a little more than two weeks ago, more than 2000 rockets have been launched against israel from gaza from syria, from lebanon and from the sinai endangering the lives of some 6 million israelis. yet if we listen to hamas spokesman, hamas apologist and news meet and in the anti-israel cobol of the u.n., we would be led to believe that israel has been the aggressor. meanwhile, hamas ex

mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent to proceed for niefns as though in morning business. -- for five minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: last week i chaired a field hearing of the senate judiciary committee. did i it in burlington, vermont, on an issue of critical importance: preserving an open internet. our committee heard testimony about the need for concrete, fundamental protections to ensure that the internet is not abused by those who control how we connect to the net. the timing of the hearing was not a coincidence. i convened it during a week when americans were gathering to celebrate what our founders put in motion more than 200 years ago. no one at a time could have imagined the internet or how important it was going to be, but the sentiment and priorities expressed at the hearing would have made our founders proud. we heard from hardworking business owners and consumers about the role of the internet in enhancing free expression but also a free and open marketplace for competition drives innovation. i brought the judiciary committee to burlington to show the federal communication commission and congress that the decisions we mak make on this ie aren't just for decisions here in washington, but they affect people throughout the country. and witnesses at this field hearing warned of how the f.c.c.'s proposed approach to new net neutrality rules would actually harm small businesses, community institutions, and consumers, the people we have in every one of our states whom we represent. i'll give you an example. the proprietor of the vermont country store. he testified that this company started off as just a local general store in vermont, now as has an e-commerce site. that accounts for 40% of its overall ref niewvmen revenue. but a third of their 450 employees support those internet transactions. these are a lot of people hired in our little state of vermont because they have open access to the internet. mr. horton was clear about his concerns. he said, we're not asking for special treatment or incentives or subsidies. all the small business community asks is simply to preserve and protect internet commerce as it exists today, which has served all businesses remarkably well. i have to agree with him. another vermont small business owner explained that her company, logic supply, cement money building a -- spent money building a quality project. they spent money building a project, not in purchasing preferential internet access. she ailed i had said without an open internet, our business wouldn't even exist today and yet it's one of the best small businesses in vermont. both of them testified that the success they've achieved with their online business would have been difficult to accomplish if the internet had been a pay-to-play world when they initially launched their sites. think of all the companies whether in vermont, mass marks or any other state or next year, the year after, the yea

mr. farr, the ranking member of the agricultural subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. farr: thank you, madam ranking chair, for yielding. i rise, madam speaker, on this bill with great concern. i feel bringing a lot of fashions to this debate because i lived in the barrios, like the ones children were coming from, when i was a peace corps volunteer in latin america. this is not a border crisis. this is not a border security issue. this is a humanitarian crisis. it's caused by problems on both sides of the border. our country has a lot at fault here because we have not addressed comprehensive immigration reform, which means we have 11 million people living in the united states undocumented. they are essentially incarcerated in this contry. they are not allowed to go home because the minute they go home and try to get back to the united states, they get arrested and they are not allowed to ever return. or barred for 10 years to return. what happens? they have been living here for years and years. they have children that they left because there were job opportunities here. and those children are now living in places that are really dangerous. and all of a sudden, yeah, things have changed. they got to get out. these countries are ranked number one, four, and five of the highest murder rates in the world. they're leaving because there are real serious humanitarian crisis and they are showing up on our border and they are not sneaking across the board he -- border. they are throwing themselves, help me, help me find my relative, my dad, my parent, my mom in this country. what does this bill do? it doesn't address the humanitarian problems at either end. it hires more cops and puts military in there, national guardsmen. if that's such a great idea, why is california, with probably the busiest border in the world with mexico, not putting the national guard down there? our governors and mayors don't think it's necessary. why are we putting more money for -- in for national guard? we don't need national guard we need red cross. humanitarian crisis. money for arms and more money for military and cops. i don't think that's the right answer. we are also doing some something really dumb. we are stripping a law now that says when we give money to these countries -- by the way, before you spend this money on your cops and military, you got to vet them. we have a human rights standard. this bill throws that out. you don't have to do that now. we are going to give you $40 million of american taxpayer money and you don't have to do anything to abide by human rights. that's really dumb. i don't think american taxpayers want their money spent that way. you know, i'm going to call upon my colleagues here not to come down here and think of themselves in a partisan way or election year way. come to this floor when you have to vote on this bill and think of yourself as a parent, as a neighbor. a kid who's knocked on your door and you go, say, oh, my god, she's crying anne, what's happened? my house, they are raping people and killing people and i'm running away. this bill says, oh, what's your address, i'll take you home. don't vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam speaker. i support full comprehensive immigration reform, but today's vote on this supplemental appropriation bill is to provide funding to i.c.e., border patrol, and other agencies to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the border, an area i represent, an area where i live, an area where 42,000 out of the 58,000 unaccompanied kids have crossed. the policy change in this bill is to get rid of a loophole in the 2008 law that the smugglers in central america and mexico have taken advantage of. all due process and legal protections are left intact under this proposed bill. you will see under a c.r.s. report that compares the current law to today's bill, you will see the same due process, the same legal protections are left intact. in fact, i respectfully ask my colleagues in opposition to show

chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madamecretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the the e has passed veterinary mobility act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, on is matter, the administration, as it is wanting to do, filed an administration policy. we refer to them as -- in our committees and around the house s.a.p. what the administration said is the following -- the administration supports measures that enhance nonprofits, fill an thropic -- philanthropic -- organizations, including the safety net for those most in need. an economic engine for job creation, environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations. and an incubator to foster the nation's toughest challenges. the president's budget includes a number of proposals that would en

chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, world english dictionary defines invasion among, among the definitions is invading with armed forces. but it's any encroachment or intrusion, the onset or advent of something harmful, as in a disease, pathlogically the spread of cancer from its point of origin into voundsing tissues -- surrounding tissues, under random house dictionary the definitions include the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease. entrance as if to take possession or overrun, and it gives the example, the annual invasion of the resort by tourists. and also infringement by intrusion. comes from middle english, from the 1400's. our hat's where we get word invasion. in the english language. it's important because in the constitution, under article 1, section 8, it says that congress has the authority to call for the military during times of invasion, that's the congress has that power, that's why it's in article 1, and then as i mentioned yesterday, you have article 1, section 10,