tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN June 18, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm EDT
that contribute to ozone nonattainment in areas that have a problem. >> would there be the possibility in the portfolio of options a community could say if they are below .2, they -- >> we have competing mandates. i am trying to figure out the process of making that decision. if they are going to have ten things on the able, and a decreased use of ethanol in their area is not an option when we know it's a contributing factor, why couldn't that be on the table as well because now you have two competing mandates? >> i think that's a good question, senator. >> we will have to resolve that in the days ahead. i would like that to be in the set of options that a community could have to make a decision rather than have a hit on several different industrial areas when we know also the
ethanol use is one of the contributing factors and at least allow them the tphreubgsability to make that decision. >> fuel use has always been an issue in considering how to meet ozone standards and the agency and the states have balanced the various requirements that congress has laid out on fuel use against other options they have. it will be an on going conversation and i take your point. >> appreciate that. and the other issue deals with the foreign importation of some of the fuels coming in. some senators have brought it up before and it's a concern folks have to ask the question if this was about protecting the environment and american energy options was the intent and that was clear in the statute as well, the more we allow foreign implementation of the fuels, how that affects the amounts and targets, if a target is going to be set and a third of it is
going to be fulfilled by foreign, should that be included? is the target number for domestically produced or all that is used? >> we understand the target is for all that is used. >> so could that be fulfilled basically with entirely foreign based fuels? if at some point we had difficulty and we had a competitive group able to produce it overseas and bring it in, could the entire requirement be produced overseas? >> highly unlikely. >> probably unlikely yeah. you are still targeting basically doesn't matter if it's foreign or domestic just setting what we are going to use. >> what we are going to use in this country. >> that's an ongoing issue and it's something we will have to deal with in the days ahead. the clear mandate of this is really focused on american energy efficiency, i guess and the way we are able to provide our own energy independence and if we are not doing that, and
simply importing it, what is the difference between importing oil or sugar cane or biodiesel products. importing is importing and we are not energy independent or working in that direction. what other comments would you have for me in the days ahead in the timeframe you have not been able to talk about yet? >> i appreciate the opportunity to come and speak with you today and you were true to your word you provided an opportunity for all of us to have a conversation. i know that there will be a lot of discussion in the months ahead as people are getting their comments in to us. i want to assure you, again how focused we are on this program, and how much we understand and appreciate and agree with so many of the things that have been urged by the senators today in terms of administering this program the way congress intended. i will reflect again that there are a variety of views even about what the statute requires
and what congress intended and i assure you we are doing our very best job, as we should, as the executive agency charged with administering this to do our best and administer the statute that we think is appropriate and is best for the american people and to make sure that we have both ambitious and responsible efforts to implement the renewable fuel standard and that's my commitment to you. >> you know we will have a ongoing conversation about the time period and preduckability to know when people can start and what the assumptions will be, because the reset is coming and it's coming extremely quickly, so we are 2022, it's both near and far as you mentioned before, and 2017 is not far away at all, and the parameters will be set by november of 2016 so we are very close and will be in the middle
of the ongoing conversation for that, and that's the one piece of this that i know we have to maintain, a very public conversation, but a very clear conversation on when the rules will be set and how to get us back on schedule, and as we are back on schedule as of november of this year, and all the rules change for november of 2016 and i am concerned that is going to rollover as well in the days ahead. on july 16 the committee will hold a hearing on some of the issues. we thank you for your testimony and the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until 5:00 p.m. and other questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.
if you missed any of this hearing on the epa's renewable fuels project and program, you can see it on our website cspan.org in its entirety. several of the presidential contenders will be speaking today at the annual faith and freedom coalition conference, and we will get to that in just a second, but the u.s. supreme court, that is, has decided that texas can refuse to issue a con confederate flag license plate and it did not decide about the health care law, and that's one of the key issues the court will be deciding and we will have complete coverage of that decision when it comes down on the c-span networks.
several of the republican presidential contenders will be speaking today at the annual faith and freedom coalition conference taking here in the nation's capital. they include florida senator marco rubio, and kentucky senator rand paul and texas senator, ted cruz. that gets underway in just under an hour, about noon eastern here on c-span 3. on c-span saturday night at 8:00 eastern supreme court justice ruth ginsberg on issues like gay rights and race relations in america, and a movie about her life and career. sunday night at 6:35, ted cruz. on c-span 2, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern we are live for the annual roosevelt reading
festival. sheila collins and her book, "when government helped." and manning on how books help the morale in the military on world war ii. and this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, we're live from the gettysburg college civil war institute annual summer commons on the civil war's end and aftermath. that's at 8:30 eastern with the university of los angeles history professor on general grant. at 11:00 abe lincoln and the press. and then sunday morning we continue our coverage at 8:30 with downs on the consequences of the civil war. and then at 11:00 a discussion
about treason and loyalty on the civil war with penn state university professor, william blair. get our complete schedule at cspan.org. janet yellens has no rate hike yet. she talked to reporters yesterday after the quarterly market meeting and ran questions on the employment rate and housing market. this is about an hour. good afternoon. today the federal open market committee reaffirmed the current 0 to 0.25% target range for the federal funds rate. since the committee last met in april, the pace of job gains has picked up and labor market conditions have improved somewhat further.
inflation has continued to run below our longer objective, but some of the downward pressure on inflation resulting from earlier sharp declines in energy prices is abating. the committee continues to judge that the first increase in the federal funds rate will be appropriate when it is seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. at our meeting that ended today, the committee concluded that these conditions have not yet been achieved. it remains the case that the committee will determine the timing of the initial increase in the federal funds rate on a meeting by meeting basis depending on its assessment of incoming economic information and its implications for the economic outlook. let me emphasize that the
importance of the initial increase should not be overstated. the stance of monetary policy will likely remain highly accommodative for quite some time after the initial increase in the federal funds rate in order to support continued progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. i will come back to today's policy decision in a few moments, but first i'd like to review recent economic developments and the outlook. the u.s. economy hit a soft patch earlier this year. real gross domestic product looks to have changed little in the first quarter. growth in household spending slowed. business fixed investment edged down. and yet exports were a substantial drag on growth. part of this weakness was likely the result of transitory factors.
despite the soft first quarter, the fundamentals underlying household spending appear favorable. and consumer sentiment remains solid. looking ahead, the committee still expects moderate pace of gdp growth with continuing job gains and lower energy prices supporting household spending. the labor market data so far this year have shown further progress toward our objective of maximum employment. although at a slower pace than late last year. over the past three months job gains have averaged about 210,000 per month. down from an average pace of 280,000 per month over the second half of last year. but still well above the pace consistent with trend labor force growth. although the unemployment rate at 5.5% in may was unchanged from the latest reading available at the time of our
april meeting, the labor force participation rate edged up. a broader measure of unemployment that includes individuals who want and are available to work but have not actively searched recently. and people who are working part time but would rather work full time has continued to improve. but it seems likely that some cyclical weakness in the labor market remains. the participation rate remains below most estimates of its underlying trend, involuntary part time employment remains elevated and wage growth remains relatively subdued. so although progress clearly has been achieved, room for further improvement remains. inflation is continued to run below our longer run objective in part reflecting lower energy
prices. declines in import prices have also restrained inflation. however, energy prices appear to have stabilized recently. my colleagues and i continue to expect that the effects of these transitory factors dissipate and ased labor market improves further, inflation will gradually move back toward our 2% objective over the medium term. market base measures of inflation compensation remain low though they have risen some from their levels earlier this year. and survey based measures of longer term inflation expectations have remained stable. the committee will continue to
monitor inflation developments carefully. this assessment of the outlook is reflected in the individual economic projections submitted for this meeting by fomc participants. as always each participant's projections are conditioned on his or her own view of appropriate monetary policy. for economic growth, participants reduce their projections for this year in line with the disappointing data for the first quarter. the central tendency of the growth projections for 2015 is now 1.8 to 2%, down a little more than 0.5% point from the march projections. the central tendency rises to 2.4 to 2.7% next year, somewhat above estimates of the longer run growth rate. the unemployment rate projections for this year are a little higher than in march. at the end of this year the central tendency for the unemployment rate stands at 5.2 to 5.3%, a bit above participants estimates of the longer run normal unemployment
rate. committee participants generally see the unemployment rate declining a little further over the course of 2016 and 2017. finally, fomc participants project inflation to be quite low this year, largely reflecting lower energy and non-energy import prices. the central tendency of the inflation projections for this year is below 1%, unchanged since march. as the transitory factors holding down inflation abate, the central tendency rises to 1.6 to 1.9% next year and to 1.9 to 2% in 2017. returning to monetary policy, as i noted the committee reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 0.25% target range for the federal funds rate remains
appropriate. as we said in our statement, the decision to raise the target range will depend on our assessment of realized and expected progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. we continue to base that assessment on a wide range of information including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. and we continue to anticipate that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when the committee is seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. on both of these fronts as i noted, we have seen some progress.
even so the committee judged economic conditions do not yet warrant an increase in the federal funds rate. while the committee views the disappointing economic performance in the first quarter as largely transitory, my colleagues and i would like to see more decisive evidence that a moderate pace of economic growth will be sustained. so the conditions in the labor market will continue to improve and inflation will move back to 2%. once we begin to remove policy accommodation, we continue to expect that as we say in our statement, even after employment and inflation are near mandate consistent levels, economic conditions may for some time warrant keeping the target
federal funds rate below levels the committee views as normal in the longer run. in other words, although policy will be data dependent, economic conditions are currently anticipated to evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the target federal funds rate. compared with the projections made in march, most fomc participants lowered somewhat their paths for the federal funds rate consistent with the revisions made to the projections for gdp growth and the unemployment rate. the median projection for the federal funds rate continues to point to a first increase later this year. with the rate rising to about 1.75% in late 2016 and 2.75% in late 2017. in 2016 and 2017 the median path is about 0.25 percentage point below that projected in march.
the median projected rate in 2017 remains below the 3.75% or so projected by most fomc participants as the longer run value of the federal funds rate even though the central tendency of the unemployment rate by that time is slightly below its estimated longer run value. and the central tendency for inflation is close to our 2% objective. participants provided a number of explanations for the federal funds rate running below its normal longer run level at that time. these included in particular the residual effects of the financial crisis which are likely to continue to constrain spending and credit availability for some time. i'd like to emphasize that the forecasts of the appropriate path of the federal funds rate are conditional on participants'
individual projections of the most likely outcomes for economic growth, employment, inflation and other factors. but our actual policy decisions over time will depend on evolving economic conditions. accordingly if the expansion proves to be more vigorous than currently anticipated, and inflation moves higher than expected, then the appropriate path would likely follow a steeper and higher trajectory. conversely, if conditions were to prove weaker than the appropriate trajectory would be lower and less steep. finally, the committee will continue its policy of reinvesting proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principle payments from agency debt and mortgage backed securities. the committee's sizable holdings of longer term securities should
help maintain accommodative financial conditions and promote further progress toward our objectives. thank you. i'll be happy to take your questions. >> hi. elan from "the washington post." as you mentioned almost all of the fomc participants believe that the first rate hike will come this year, but two of your colleagues believe that 2016 is the appropriate time, the imf has called on 2016 as the appropriate time for liftoff as well. and markets seem to place a greater probability of liftoff in january than they do in september. so what is the misunderstanding here? what do they have wrong? and why do you think that waiting until 2016 is a mistake? >> well, there are obviously a
range of opinions both in the market and among committee members. at this time on what the appropriate stance of policy is likely to be later this year and next year, but importantly when the people write down their dots in the s.e.p., they're making forecasts about what unfolding data is likely to show. but the participants will all be -- their views will evolve with unfolding data. for all of us the appropriate policy decision is going to be data dependent. and all of us will be looking at incoming data and our opinions about the appropriate timing of normalization are likely to shift as we look at how the data evolves. differences in the appropriate assessments of the appropriate
stance of policy in addition to reflecting different views and the outlook there are a set of risks that all of us need to weigh in judging the appropriate time of the beginning of normalization. on the one hand waiting too long to begin normalization kris k significantly overshooting our inflation objective, given the lags in the operation of monetary policy. and on the other hand beginning too early could risk derailing recovery that we've worked for a very long time to try to achieve. and so we're trying to assess those risks.
but i want to emphasize sometimes too much attention is placed on the timing of the first increase in the federal funds rate. and what should matter to market participants is the entire trajectory, the entire expected trajectory of policy and again, while our actual policy decisions will have to evolve in light of what really does happen in the economy, the committee as you can see by the s.e.p. projections currently anticipates that conditions will evolve in the economy in a manner that will make it appropriate to raise the federal funds rate gradually over time. >> madame chair, i wonder if you might characterize the progress made towards fulfilling the fed's two criteria? are you somewhat more confident,
not confident at all that you're moving towards 2%? has there been a lot of improvement in the labor market, some improvement? and how should we judge when those two criteria have been fulfilled? >> well, it's a judgment that the committee is -- will have to make. and as i've said previously and as we've said in this statement, it will depend on a wide range of data. and not on any simple indicator. so i can't provide you -- it would be wrong for me to provide you a road map that said something as simple as if the unemployment rate declines to x then the labor market will have improved enough for us to begin to raise policy. obviously we have to look at the pace of job creation, we have to look at what's happening to labor force participation to part-time employment for economic reasons, to job openings, to the pace of quits, to wage inflation and other
indicators of the state of the labor market. i did say and we agreed that labor market slack has diminished to some extent in the intermeeting period. and clearly over a longer span of time over the last several years obviously we've made considerable progress in moving toward our goal of maximum employment. so in spite of the fact that there is some progress on that front, the committee wants to see some further progress before feeling that it will be appropriate to raise rates. on inflation, again there has been some progress in the sense energy prices appear to have stabilized. now, inflation is going to overall inflation is likely to
run at a low level for a substantial period of time. the big declines in energy prices came toward the end of last year. and the beginning of this year. and they're not going to wash out of the inflation data until late in this year. but the fact that energy prices have stabilized means that the pressure from that source is diminishing. in addition the dollar appears to have largely stabilized. and with respect to core inflation it has been running under our 2% objective, but declining import prices have been reducing that pressure. i believe that as the labor market continues to improve and as our confidence in that forecast rises, at least for me my confidence will also rise that inflation will move back up toward 2%. . .
>> thank you. john hills raj from the "wall street journal." i want to ask you about a comment that john dudley make that the fed should have raised interest rates during the 2004 to the 2006 cycle. i wonder if you agree with that and whether there are lessons from the 2004 to 2006 cycle that should be applied today? and with regard to congress, they have passed measures like an audit, the fed bill or the measure to subject the fed to a policy rule and there is now a shelby bill out there and i wonder if there is anything in that that you can accept more broadly and whether there is anything that you can point to that congress can do to make the fed a more effective and accountable institution? thank you. >> so on the first question, you asked about the 2004-06 rate
increase cycle. throughout that period, the fed indicated that rates would rise at a measured pace and that turned out to be, i believe, 17 meetings with 25 basis point increases at each meeting. as i have emphasized previously we absolutely two not expect to follow any mechanical 25 basis points meeting, 25 basis points every other meeting. no plan to follow any type of mechanical approach to raising the federal funds rate. we will evaluate incoming conditions and move in the manner that we regard as appropriate. so that is one lesson. conceivably, i think, with the
benefit of hindsight is might have been better to raise rates more rapidly or more during the 2004-06 cycle. i'm not certain of that judgment. but i think there is a case to be made. you asked about audit the fed and the shelby bill. the shelby bill has a title in it that addresses a number of issues pertaining to the fed. i suppose i would ask what exactly is the problem? we place high priority on being an accountable and transparent central bank and i think that if you compare the transparency of monetary policy decisions in the federal reserve with other central banks we are one of the most transparent central banks in terms of the information that
we provide to the public in a whole variety of ways. to my mind, the fed is accountable and we work well as an institution. i'm not certain what the problem is that needs to be addressed. >> thank you very much. sam fleming from "the financial times." first question is also referencing something that bill dudley said recently which is to due with the use of the balance sheet in tightening monday -- monetary policy and that the hikes should be hiked before the fed continues -- considers ending reinvestments and i wondered if you could give more clarity on how the fed spwepdzintends
to approach the ending approach of the ending of reinvestment on the balance sheet and would you see any end of the tapering investments for the maturities in the portfolio? and the second question is the use of gradual and you used this term in the opening statement and is the term gradual on the official guidance from the fed and something we should expect to see popping up in official statements in the future? thanks. >> so let me start with the balance sheet and our reinvestment policy. we issued a normalization statement giving principles of normalizing policy. and what we said at that time is that we expected to reduce or cease reinvestment at some time after we had begun the process of normalizing policy by raising our target for the federal funds rate. we said the timing of that would depend on economic and financial conditions. and the committee has really not
made any further decisions about how it is going to go about doing that. so president dudley was expressing his own personal point of view but this is a matter that the committee has not yet decided and i can't provide any further detail. it is obviously something we'll be thinking about. let's see. you asked about gradual. so in a sense we already have a statement, the last paragraph of the federal open market committee statement says, the committee currently anticipated that even after employment and inflation on near mandate consistent levels conditions may warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the committee views as natural in the long run.
that is a mouthful. it is a long sentence, but i think the spirit of that sentence is consistent with my use of the word "gradual" and it is consistent with what you see in the summary of economic projections. participants are projecting and obviously there is a lot of uncertainty and they are projecting increases that average around 100 basis points per year. now that is not a promise. it is conditional on their economic forecasts and those forecasts may prove to be wrong and may change. but at this time the assessment that participants have of the economy suggest to them that the appropriate pace of normalization to keep the economy on track to meet our
objectives will be gradual in that sense. >> peter koch with bloomberg television. madam chair, if i could, gyp your discussions -- given your discussions over the last two days with your colleagues the state of the economy, the improvements that you've seen, do you think it is likely we'll are see a rate increasing this year? following that, the comments from the ifm -- imf this month and the comment to hold off raising rates until next month and madam la guard said even though there is a risk of inflation there is concern that a rate hike could trig market volatility and financial stability consequences that go well beyond the u.s. borders. how do you respond to that? are you factoring in that international context for your decision making and is it
appropriate for the imf to make shows kind of specific recommendations? >> and your first question was about a rate increase this year? again, the committee tries to give an indication in the summary of economic projections about how economic conditions will unfold, their best projections of that. and what the appropriate policy will be given in light of those expectations. and clearly most participants are anticipating that a rate increase this year will be appropriate. now that assumes, as you can see, that they're expecting a pick up in growth in the second half of this year and further improvement in labor market conditions. and we will all be -- we will be making decisions, however, that depend on the actual data that we see in the months ahead. so certainly we could see data in the months ahead that will
justify the expectations that you see in the dot plot. but again, no decision has been made by the committee about what the right timing is of an increase. it will depend on unfolding data in the months ahead. but certainly an increase in year is possible, we could certainly see data that would justify that. in terms of the imf guidance, i believe the imf plays a useful role by undertaking reviews of the economic policies of all of its members. obviously there is a range of opinion among outside observers and market participants as well as among the committee participants, as you can see in the s.e.p., about how economic conditions are likely to unfold and consequently the appropriate timing of an initial rate hike -- initial rate hike. and i think we all agree and the imf agrees that the policies should be dependent and the committee is always doing its best to assess the implications of incoming data and i would point out that we have had incoming data since that report was written. but again, i want to emphasize and i think the imf would agree
with this, that the importance of the timing of the first decision to raise rates is something that should not be overblown whether it is september or december or march. what matters is the entire path of rates. and, as i've said, the committee anticipates economic conditions that would call for a gradual evolution of the fed funds rate toward normalization. with respect to international
with respect to international spillovers, this is something that we've been long attentive to. obviously we have to put in place a policy that is appropriate to evolving conditions in the u.s. economy. but we -- we can't promise that there will not be volatility when we make a decision to raise rates. what we can do is to do our very best to communicate clearly about our policy, and our expectations to avoid any type of needless misunderstanding of our policy that could create volatility in the market and potential spillovers as well to
emerging markets. and i've been trying to do that now for sometime. i've been doing by best to make good on that pledge. >> marty sclutsinger with the "associated press." you just talked about the fact you can't promise there won't be volatility in the markets. there seems to be two schools of thought. one is the fed learned from the mistakes made in the 2013 with the temper tantrum and you are going to telegraph this so well that will limit it and the more pessimistic school of thought is when you do start raising rates they have been low for so long that the will make the temper tantrum seem mild by comparison. which camp are you falling in on that? >> i think our experience suggests that it is hard to have great confidence in predicting
what the market reaction will be to fed decisions and there have been surprises in the past. i don't think the committee anticipated that its decision would cause the taper tantrum. and all i can say is that uncertainty in the market at this point about long term rates doesn't appear to be unusually high. and we can only do what is in our power to attempt to minimize needless volatility that could have repercussions for other countries or for financial stability more generally and that is to attempt to communicate as clearly as we can about our policy decisions, what they will depend on what we're looking at. we will be responding to incoming data. we've tried to make that clear. and i think it is clear that the market is also responding to incoming data. we have tried to make that contrary.
and i think it's clear the market is responding to incoming data and you can see that in daily market reactions to surprises in the economic data. and of course, none of us can quite forecast what the incoming data will be. >> your latest economic projections show that you expect the unemployment rate to fall more slowly this year and then to fall by implications more quickly next year. could you talk about what has changed in your assessment of the labor market and how that impact the policy? >> so our productivity growth is a factor that affects the pace of improvement in the labor market. productivity growth has been extremely slow for the last couple of years. and i think in part the pace of improvement in the labor market that we're projecting reflects
the notion that there is likely to be some pick up in the pace of productivity growth. obviously that is something that is quite uncertain and it is conceivable that if productivity growth disappoints something, i hope that is something that we won't see because that has implication for living standards we could see faster improvement in the labor market. but in addition there are other margins of slack that don't slow up in the unemployment rate, labor force participation that has -- at least appears to be depressed at least to some except because of cyclical weakness. and the fact that labor force participation rate has remained
roughly stable for the last year or so when there is an underlying downward trend that suggests that some slack is being taken up by, in a sense, improved or diminished cyclical impact on participation, i expect that to continue and i would also to see some improvement in the degree of part-time employment that is for economic reasons. >> jonathan spice with reuters. to your point on needing more decisive evidence in order to initiate the first rate hike, how close do you feel the economy is to full capacity now? given employer costs and monthly wages are at a pace that is a
six-year high now, how has the risk change and that inflation strengthen quicker than you are expecting? >> so the committee estimates that the longer run normal level of the unemployment rate is 5.0 to 5.2. at 5.5% we have an unemployment rate that still exceeds the committee's best attempts to estimate what is normal unemployment rate for this economy. and as i mentioned, there appear to be unusually large elements of slack over and above that in the form of somewhat still depressed labor force participation and part-time work for economic reasons. so i think it is fair to say that most members -- most participants in the committee wouldn't judge yet, although some might, that most wouldn't judge us to be at, quote,
maximum employment. wage increases are still running at a low level but there have been some tentative signs that wage growth is picking up. we've seen an increase in the growth rate of the employment cost index and a mild uptick in the growth of average hourly earning. i would call these tentative signs of stronger wage growth. i think it is not yet definitive but that is a hopeful sign. still, however, inflation not only headline, but stripping out food and energy, underlying inflation, core inflation, is still running below the committee's objective.
so i think we need to see additional strength in the labor market and the economy moving somewhat closer to capacity, the output gap shrinking in order to have confidence that inflation will move back up to 2%. but we have made some progress. >> greg rob from market watch. i would like to turn your attention to the housing market for a question. both rents and house prices have been rising rapidly recently. squeezing americans on both sides. how comfortable are you with this and does it impact monetary policy? thank you. >> well, i mean, the increase in house prices is restoring wealth of many households who have that as their major asset. it is an important part of the wealth of american household --
the american household sector. and for all of the households that were under water, those house price increases are improving their financial condition. although, of course, at the same time, it is making housing less affordable for those who look to buy. at the same time, housing over all, given the low levels, the low level of mortgage rates remains quite affordable. i think credit availability remains quite constrained for mortgages. anyone who doesn't have pristine credit rating is -- finds it very difficult at this point to quality for a mortgage. and i think we're seeing quite a bit of reluctance given the job market and given what the history of what has happened to house prices of young people to
want to buy homes. we've seen them delay marriage and wanting to have the flexibility to move. and so the demand for multi-family housing to rent is very high and rent prices are moving up, i think, because of that. >> hi, jeremy, [ inaudible ]. from the press. in europe, there is gridlock in greece and the scenario of getting like greece every day is more likely and so how concerned are you by these developments? do you feel it could effect the global and the u.s. economy and could it influence in any way -- in any way, sorry, when you will decide to increase the interest rates? >> well, unfortunately, greece and its creditors are faced with very difficult and consequential decisions at this point and in the days ahead. and my hope is that they will
continue to work together to try to find a solution to the current difficulties and impasse. obviously european leaders place great value on preserving european monetary economic and political integration and the greek people have made clear it is important to them to remain in the euro area so this is a very difficult situation. in the event that there is not agreement, i do see the potential for disruptions that could effect the european economic outlook and global financial markets. i would say that the united states has very limited direct exposure to greece, either through trade and financial -- or financial channels, but to
the extent that there are impacts on the euro, where the economy or on global financial markets, there would undoubtedly be spillovers to the united states that would affect our outlook as well. >> chris? >> thank you. chris conner from bloomberg news. madam chair, i would like to come back to the topic of consumer spending. consumer spending has been very disappointing for many months in the u.s. economy. i'm wonder, do you think there has been a meaningful shift and one that will persist in the behavior of households in respect to spending and saving or would you be more inclined to look at the more recent encouraging recent retail sale figures and return of the american consumer there? >> so, i think in recent weeks we have received data that suggests that consumer spending
is growing at a moderate pace. i would say car sales, for example, were very strong. most of it probably represents payback for weak sales during the winter months but nevertheless the pace of car sales has been strong and recent readings and retail sales and on spending on services have suggested an improvement in the pace of consumer spending. there are questions at this point about just how much impact we've seen of lower energy prices on consumer spending. the decline in oil prices translates into improvement in house hold income on average of
something like $700 per household. and i'm not convinced yet by the data that we've seen the kind of response to that, that i would ultimately expect. and i think it is hard to know at this point whether or not that reflects a very cautious consumer that is eager to add to savings and to work down borrowing or in part some survey evidence suggests the consumers are not yet confident that the improve that they've seen, the decline in their need to spend for energy, for gasoline, that that is going to be something that will be permanent. they may think it is a transitory change and not yet be responding. so i think the jury is out there. but i think we have seen some pick-up in house hold spending.
>> peter barns, fox business. madam chair, i want to shift over to the decision in the aig case this past monday and in it the judge in the case said in his opinion, quote, there is nothing in the federal reserve act or any other forward statute that would permit a federal reserve bank to take over a private corporation and run its business as if the government were the owner, yet that is precisely what the federal reserve bank of new york did and the judge went on to cite the replacement of the aig chief executive officer and taking control of the business operations. i wanted to ask you, did the fed break the law in assisting aig back in the crisis? and if this decision is upheld on appeal, how does that effect the fed's tool box and effect its ability to help firms in trouble in the future financial crisis, would it make that kind
of assistance illegal or would you have to get congress to change the law and make a fix? thank you. >> so the federal reserve strongly believes that its actions with respect to aig in 2008 were legal, proper and effective and believes that they were necessary given the threat that a disorderly failure of that company would have had likely implications for the economy, for the flow of credit to households in businesses in the economy. and it believes that the -- we believe that the terms of that intervention were tough and appropriately so in order to
protect taxpayers from the risks that those rescue loans presented at the time they were made. now, i should emphasize that dodd frank changed our 13-3 authority and said that the federal reserve may not in the future crisis intervene to attempt to address the issues of a particular company. at the same time, it gave the government a set of new tools that it could use in a situation like the aig situation or lehman to try to resolve such a situation that poses systemic risks in an orderly way.
i just say at this point the federal reserve under dodd frank can continue, if necessary, in some future crisis, to engage in broad based programs, similar to the program we had in effect -- the programs we had in affect in 2008 to provide support for the issuance of asset-backed securities that enabled loans to small businesses and to students and for credit cards and for credit throughout the economy, or to support the issuance of commercial paper. at this point, i believe we are working with the department of justice to decide on next steps. >> madam chair, mark hammeric
with bankrate.com. so much discussion about rising rates seems to focus on the potential negatives and i'm wondering if you could talk a little bit if you envision possible unintended benefits of higher rates and one of the things i'm thinking about is the fact that savers have suffered through so many years of miserly returns and many may be actually anticipating in a better way seeing a better return on their investment. thank you. >> so let me say, to my mind, the most important positive is that i believe a decision to raise rates would signify very clearly that the u.s. economy has made great progress in recovering from the trauma of the financial crisis and that we're in a different place. i think hopefully that would be something that would be confidence-inducing for some households and businesses. from the point of view of
savers, of course this has been a very difficult period. many retirees and i hear from some almost every day, are really suffering from low rates, that they had anticipated would bolster their retirement income. this obviously has been one of the adverse consequences of a period of low rates. we have a good reason for having kept rates at the levels that we have. we are charged -- our charge from congress is to pursue the goals of maximum employment and price stability. that is what we've been doing. and obviously there are benefits from a strong economy to every household in the economy, including savers, from having a better job market and more secure economy.
but, yes, when the time comes for us to raise rates, i think there will be some benefits that flow through to savers. >> jim pus from the l.a. times. to follow up, i think savers, people on fixed incomes were hopeful they would see a rate increase, if not this meeting, soon. what kind of assurances can you give them and people out there who think the fed is never going to raise rates? i got some e-mails today saying they are never going to raise rates. what kind of assurance can you give to people who are waiting for that to happen? >> i can't give an ironclad promise but i think it is clear from our summary of economic projections that we anticipate
that the economy will grow, that the labor market will improve, that inflation will more back up to 2%, is our objective over the median term and if economic conditions unfold in the way most of my colleagues and i anticipate, we see it appropriate to raise rates and the largest number of participants anticipate that those conditions should be in place later this year. obviously, we have to -- there can be surprises. that might not happen. it is not an ironclad guarantee. but we anticipate that that is something that will be appropriate later this year. >> mike derby with dow jones news wires. can you shed some additional light on how large reverse repo operations are likely to be in their initial phase? additionally how important are financial conditions to the pace
of the tightening cycle? how important is the market reaction in determines how fast and slow and the ultimate end point of a fed tightening cycle? >> so with respect to -- you asked first about overnight reverse repos. and we communicated in our minutes that the committee has an intention to make sure that they are available -- overnight repos are available in large quantity at liftoff to ensure that we have a smooth liftoff, that there will be an elevated level of provision of overnight rrp. however, it is our expectation and plan that fairly quickly after liftoff, we will reduce the level of the overnight rrp facility and we have a variety of ways in which we can do that.
with respect to market reactions, we always, in evaluating the economic outlook, have to take account of financial conditions, whether conditions, whether it's the level of long-term interest rates or the value of the dollar in assessing the economic outlook. to the extent there are market actions and market movements, whether they are in reaction to decisions of ours or in reaction to other events foreign events or unfolding economic conditions we will always take those into account in deciding on the appropriate path of policy. [ inaudible ] >> steve bechner of mmi.
madam chair good to see you. you mentioned the dollar has stabilized. in fact since mid-march i believe it's given up a good bit of its gains from last summer. to what extent do you think there will be an ongoing drag from the dollar, taking into account this dollar retreat and overall, how important is the dollar exchange rate in monetary policy these days relative to the past? >> well, i think we still are, since last summer, have seen an appreciable increase in the value of the dollar, vis-a-vis most of our trading partners including emerging markets. it's a significant depreciation of the dollar. and it's had a negative effect on net exports and so served is something of a drag on the
economy and probably that drag is going to continue for some time to come. so it is a factor affecting the outlook. in addition, import prices for non-oil imports continue to fall, and i think that serving to push down a core inflation a little bit, eventually i expect that impact to ebb. it is affecting the outlook that said, we, obviously, have no target for the dollar. we take movements in the dollar in its economic impact is one of many factors affecting the outlook. in spite of the appreciation of the dollar, the committee obviously thinks the economy is likely to do well enough to likely call for some tightening
later this year. >> john helpman. last month, senator elizabeth warren and congressman elijah cummings sent a letter asking about an inquiry into the fed and other regulators implementation of the community reinvestment act. the concern being that the cra as it's implemented now is not giving communities -- blighted communities like in baltimore and other areas, adkwes access to banking services. do you think the fed is doing everything it can to give access to those communities, to these kinds of services? do you think it needs to be doing more? >> we take cra very serious lyly and evaluate for those banks that we supervise.
we have a set of guidelines and are very conscientious in attempting to evaluate cra performance. it's something we certainly take into account in assessing applications we use for mergers, and we have very active programs to try to bring together community groups with banking organizations to try to provide them with information about how they can assess community needs and best address them. but we are looking at cra and continue to see whether implementation could be improved. >> thank you very much.
this is a live picture from the white house briefing room where shortly president obama is expected to arrive to make a statement on the shooting that took place in charleston south carolina. in a church in south carolina. the president expected in just a couple of moments. we'll have live coverage of that. nine people died as a result. u.s. attorney general loretta lynch says that a suspect is in custody. she made these remarks just a short time ago. >> i'll take a moment to address
the heartbreaking and deeply tragic events that took place at emanuel ame church in south carolina. it's a crime that's reached into the heart of that community. the department of justice has opened a hate crime investigation into this shooting incident. the fbi, atf, u.s. marshals service, civil rights division and the u.s. attorney's office are working with our state and local partners, and we stand ready to offer every resource every means and tool that we possess in order to locate and to apprehend the perpetrator of this barbaric crime. acts like this one have no place in our country and no place in a civilized society. and i want to be clear. the individual who committed these acts will be found and will face justice. as we move forward in this matter, my thoughts and prayers and those of our entire law enforcement community here at the department of justice and
around the country are with the families and loved ones of the victims in charleston. even as we struggle to comprehend this heartbreaking event, i want everyone in charleston and everyone who has been affected by this tragedy to know that we will do everything in our power to help heal this community and make it whole again. >> i don't know another way to describe what i heard this morning in my morning briefing. and then the news accounts of this sicken inging revelation of what took place in south carolina last night. think about this. the sanctity of a house of worship was violated as a gunman opened fire at an historically black emanuel ame church in charleston south carolina. we know now at least nine people
are dead. others, of course hurt. i don't know how else to describe it. this individual was like a sheep in wolf's clothing. he sat among the congregation for a substantial amount of time before he pulled out a weapon and started firing at people. the thought of people who were in a house of worship being gunned down as they gathered to pray is heartwrenching devastating and is an ultimate act of cowardice and hatred. as our good chaplain said. our hearts go out to the families and friends, the people who are gunned down in that
church. it's hard for me to comprehend anything so awful. so on behalf of the senate family, we send our support, our sympathy to charles law enforcement as they try to capture this murderer and i hope the perpetrator will be swiftly apprehended and brought to justice. i had some remarks i was going to give, but they could be deemed partisan in nature and i think i could give those at another time. i don't feel it would be appropriate for me to talk about things that are -- i feel kind of inappropriate today with this appall hanging over our country. mr. president, based upon that, i would ask that the chair
announce the business of the day. >> it's just such a shocking attack that was made in charleston. my colleague, congressman clyburn has already returned home. our congressman, mr. sanford will have a moment of silence on the floor. when the news came forth about this, i thought maybe they were reporting on an anniversary of something that happened a long, long time ago. i said what is this in the news. what is this in the news today, unless it was the anniversary day. it wasn't, of course. it was a new fresh reality of a chaj challenge in our country in terms of respect for one another and the use of violence to express that or lack thereof. words are totally inadequate and
they become less and less adequate the more this happens. i'm so -- i don't want to use the word pleased but i'm pleased the justice department will be treating it as what it is, a hate crime. >> on behalf of the whole house may i say how heartbroken i am by the murder of innocent churchgoers. at a time like this it reveals the depth of our love and resolve and our prayers go out to all the victims' families. our thought goes to the law enforcement officers working to bring this perpetrator to justice. anyone who would do something so unspeakable is pure evil. >> and a live picture now from the white house briefing room where shortly president obama is expected to make a statement on the shooting. nine people died in that church
shooting last night in charleston, south carolina. according to the associated press, police have identified the suspect as 21-year-old dylann roof of lexington, carolina. he is now in custody. greg mullen says he stayed at a prayer meeting for nearly an hour before he opened fire. among the dead was state senator clementa pinckney. at noon today, south carolina senator tim scott was scheduled to hold a prayer circle on the east front of the capitol. it looks like we should be hearing from the president in a couple of moments. his notes have been placed on the podium. south carolina senator lindsey graham made the statement. our prayers are with the families of the victims. we are all heartbroken by this tragedy. the victims of the families, please know you're being prayed for by so many.
>> we just got the two-minute warning that president obama will be arriving here in the white house briefing room to make a statement on the south carolina church shootings. the south carolina press reporting a man was arrested in the slayings of nine people including a pastor at a prayer meeting inside an historic black church in downtown charleston. he stayed for nearly an hour inside the church before shooting six females and three males at a prayer meeting. that's from the police chief. he was arrested at a traffic stop wednesday morning in north carolina.
good afternoon everybody. this morning i spoke with and vice president biden spoke with mayor joe riley and other members of charleston to express our deep sorrow over the senseless murders that took place last night. michelle and i know several members of emanuel ame church. we knew their pastor, reverend clementa pinckney who along with eight others gathered in prayer and fellowship and was murdered last night. to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and their community doesn't say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.
any death of this sort is a tragedy. any shooting involving multiple victims is a tragedy. there is something particularly heartbreaking about a death happening in a place in which we seek solace and we seek peace. in a place of worship. mother emanuel is more than a church. this is a place of worship that was founded by african-americans seeking liberty. this is a church that was burned to the ground because its worshipers worked to end slavery. when there were laws banning all black church gatherings they
conducted church services in secret. when there was a nonviolent movement to bring our country in closer line with our highest adeals some of our brightest leaders spoke and led marches from this church's steps. this is a sacred place in the history of charleston and in the history of america. the fbi is now on the scene with local police and more of the bureau's best are on their way to join them. the attorney general has announced plans to open a hate crime investigation. we understand that the suspect is in custody, and i'll let the best of law enforcement do its work to make sure that justice is served. until the investigation is complete, i'm necessarily constrained in terms of talking about the details of the case. but i don't need constrained
about the emotions that tragedies like this make. i've had to make statements like this too many times. communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. we don't have all the facts, but we know that once again innocent people were kills in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun. now is the time for mourning and for healing. but let's be clear, at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. it doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. and it is in our power to do
something about it. i say that recognizing the politics in this town or close a lot of those avenues right now. but it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. and at some point it's going to be important for the american people to come to grips with it. and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively. the fact that this took place in a black church obviously raises questions about a dark part of our history. this is not the first time black churches have been attacked. and we know the hate red of the cross, races and faith poses a
risk to our democracy and ideals. i'm confident the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across charleston today from all races, from all faiths, from all places of worship indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome. that certainly was doctor king's hope just over 50 years ago after four little girls were killed in a bombing at a black church in birmingham, alabama. he said they lived meaningful lives and died nobly. they say to each of us, dr. king said, black and white alike that we must substitute courage for caution. they say to us that we must be concerned not merely with who murdered them but about the system, the way of life, philosophy which produced the
murderers. their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realize of the american dream. and if one will hold on he will discover that god walks with him and that god is able to lift you from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope and transform dark and desolate valleys into sunlit paths of inner peace. reverend pinckney and his congregation understood that spirit. their christian faith compelled them to reach out, not just to members of their congregation, or to members of their own communities, but to all in need. they opened their doors to strangers who might enter a church in search of healing or
redemption. emanuel church and its congregation have risen before from flames, from an earthquake and other dark times to give hopes to other generations of charlestonians and with our prayers and our love and the buoyancy of hope, it will rise again now as a place of peace. thank you. >> president obama on the shootings that took place last night at emanuel african methodist episcopal church. pastor clementa pinckney was killed. he was 41 years old and the father two of kids. a suspect is in custody. dylann roof was captured. he was arrested in march in
lexington county on felony drug possession charges. the motive for the shooting remains unclear. we'll move on from this now and take you live to the faith and freedom coalition conference as it continues today in washington. speakers are senator marco rubio of florida and senator rand paul senator ted cruz. all candidates in the 2016 republican presidential nomination. the speaker right now is senator marco rubio of florida. live coverage. >> the entire, and i mean the entire republican establishment in washington and in florida was aligned with him. the truth is in the early days of that race the only people that thought i could win all lived in my house. four of them were under the age of 10. but then as i do now i chose to run. i chose to run because for america, the future is now.
if we keep promoting the same leaders, we'll be left behund and lose the race for the 21st century. then there are those who say, well we like marco, but we support someone else because now is not his time. but he has a great future, they say. that's great news. that's good news because this election is in the future. but more importantly, this election is about the future. and now "the new york times" recently said i was not rich enough to be president. jeannette and i have been blessed. it's true i didn't start my career with the advantage of fam lie connections and i don't have a foundation that raises $2 billion, some of it from foreign entities. we've been able to invest in our children. not just by saving for them to go to college one day but by being able to send them to
receive a christian education. we were able to buy a luxury speed boat cleverly disguised as a family fishing boat. and on the 5th of every month jeannette and i send a check to pay for the mortgage on our family home. but the biggest debt i have isn't to a bank. the biggest debt i have is to america. this isn't just the country i was born in. this is the nation that changed the history of my family. when my father was 9 years old, his mother passed away. he had to leave school and go to work. he would work for the rest of his life and he never went back to school. when he was young, he had big dreams for himself but they were impossible. through no fault of his own. the purpose of his life became to give his children the chance to do all the things he never
could. he worked tirelessly for many years, well into his 70s as a banquet bartender. he worked nights, weekends holidays. he was grateful for the work he had, but that's not the job he wanted for us. my father stood behind a small portable bar in the back of a room just like this so one day i'd have an opportunity to stand behind a microphone in front of a room like this. and the journey from behind that bar to behind this microphone is the essence of the american dream. and it reminds us that this is not just my story. this is our story. for as americans, every single one of us is just a generation or two remufd from someone who made their future the purpose of our lives. and it also reminds us what makes america special is not that we have rich people. every country has rich people. we're glad there are people that are economically successful.
but people who are here will never be rich and never be famous through hard work, persevereance and sacrifice are able to achieve happiness. today, and by the way, whether this country remains a special country or not will depend on whether that's journey my parents made and you and your parents and grandparents made, whether that journey is still possible for the men and women trying to make it. it will be determined by whether the people who clean the rooms in this hotel and will pick up after us after we finish here will be able to do for their children what our parents did for us. today in the early years of this new century the challenge we face to that dream is we live in a time of rapid change. changes that present us with great challenges but also great opportunities. we have before us the opportunity to build an america that's even stronger and freer and more prosperous than ever.
we have the opportunity to be a people with both the right skills and also the right values. and we have the opportunity to see to it the american dream doesn't just survive but reaches more people and changes more lives than ever before. we have been blessed with a unique opportunity to live at this time in history and i hope we embrace it not just in this election but every election. not just this year but every year. and so that's why i'm running for president. that's why i hope no matter who the nominee may be and every night i say a small prayer that it is me but no matter who it may be that's why i ask you to join us to choose the right road into our future. the road not to the past, but the road into the 21st century. so that our generation can one day say of ourselves, what is written in 2 timothy, i have
fought the good fight. i have finished the race. i have kept the faith. and we will know that because we did, we left for our children a new american century. thank you very much for the chance to speak to you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ] that was terrific. and we're just getting started. our next speaker also is a man who was told when he launched his senate bid in 2009, what a ridiculous idea. you can't win. don't even bother.
he thwartought it was a great idea he bothered to run, and he won. now rand paul is a senator representing the great state of condition ken. in that capacity, senator paul has been a vocal advocate for term limits, balanced budget amendment and read the bills act. read it before you vote on it. and in honor of the federal reserve. he's been a unique voice in his party in going places where republicans have not always gone. to talk to citizens talk to americans, talk to voters. he serves on the foreign relations labor and pensions, homeland security and government affairs committee and a graduate of the duke university school of medicine. for 17 years he was a practicing ophthalmologist in bowling green, kentucky, where 20 years ago he started a clinic for those less fortunate in need of eye care. he continues to administer pro
bono eye care in kentucky and abroad to those in need. he and his wife of 23 years, kelly, have three sons. he's the son of presidential candidate ron paul and you are probably aware two months ago, senator rand paul launched his bid for the republican nomination for president. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming senator rand paul. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. [ applause ] i feel kind of short changed. i was supposed to go first. marco goes first. are there any protesters left. come on. if there's anybody left, we could start with the protest and just get it out of the way. if there's a protest left, i'll take the first question from a
protester. disappointing. i think there are some big issues that go beyond maybe some of the superficial issues of the state. one of the issues that's a big and recurring issue and occurred to our founding fathers and to civilized men and women probably since the beginning of time. that is our liberty and virtue mutually exclusive? are they incompatible? can you have one without the other? can you have liberty without virtue? washington didn't seem to think so. most of our framers didn't think so. washington said that democracy requires a virtuous people. ronald reagan would agree with him. freedom and faith are so intertwined that you should never attempt to decouple them. a friend of mine, don devine, in the reagan administration wrote a book called "america's way back." he said the great achievement of
our framers was a synthesized freedom and tradition. he said that freedom requires tradition for law and order, for inspiration. but the tradition requires freedom to escape stagnation, to escape coercion and decline. you have to have a dose of both. one without the other isn't something we strive for. when i think of how do we compare our different ways of muxing liberty and virtue, i think about how different the american revolution was from the french revolution. in the american revolution we threw off the yoke of the king. some people will say are we a christian nation? well, we were founded by people that were predominantly christian. a people predominantly religious and kept their religion as part of their tradition.
we also kept the democratic representation. the house of burgess that had been going on 150 years. when we had our revolution we were remarkably lucky that it turned out as well as it did. i think part of it is we sought more freedom but we didn't give up on our traditions. we didn't give up on believing we had to have a virtuous nation. there had to be an underpinning or rnd girding coming from something beyond us, that we -- [ applause ] that we believe that our rights actually came from god and couldn't be taken away. i have five minutes with them on the steps of the capitol and i'll say, are we a republic or democracy? they get it right about half the time. if we could improve some of our education. but the thing is that it's an important question. if you believe that a constitutional republic, you
believe that our rights come naturally from god and that a majority shouldn't take them away from us. [ applause ] oz guinness is a theologian and talked about it in "a suicide for free people." how liberty requires restraint but the only restraint consistent with liberty is self-restraint. can government save you? nobody in the room believes that. can government perfect your life? can government be the end all? the reason i ask these questions is so often i meet with pastors and ministers and they're looking to government for answers. i say i'm looking to you for help. the thing is what's the number one linkage of a problem to poverty in our country? we say poverty is a public policy. we should do something publicly
to fix poverty. the number one link is having kids without being married. but i can't make you get married. i can't do that. doesn't mean someone shouldn't say that it's appropriate and necessary and that it's important. so really it needs to be a combination. needs to be both a combination of a religious people, people in government who are relidge yes pastors. it needs to be a combination of all the above. we had the shooting this morning in south carolina. what kind of person goes in a church and shoots nine people? there's a sickness in our country. there's something terribly wrong, but it isn't going to be fixed by your government. it's people straying away, it's people not understanding where salvation comes from. and i think that if we understand that, we'll understand and have better expectations of what we get from
our government. but i'll give you an understanding or maybe a little bit of how i feel let down sometimes by my government. i spent most of my life as a physician. i trained for ten years practiced for 20 years and still consider to be my primary role in life is that i'm going to continue doing surgerey. i'll do surgery on friday for people who don't have insurance in paducah, kentucky. i'll be in haiti during august doing surgery. it's a talent i have that i think i can give back. at the same time when i look to government and say government, for instance, shouldn't do bad things. at the very least agree not to do bad things. in foreign rlgsselations committee about six months ago, i said maybe at the very least we shouldn't give our money to countries that persecute christians. [ applause ]
if you ask that question, not just here in this audience, which i know understands and has a religious faith, if you ask that question anywhere in america outside the beltway it's a 95 maybe a 99% question. here's my amendment. my amendment says that any country that puts cristianhristians to death for speaking their mind on religion, for changing their religion to christianity or for interfaith marriage we shouldn't give them a penny. not one penny. you know what the vote was? 18-2 against my amendment. what we have is a congress and your representatives so out of touch that i put forward something i think is easy to answer. we're borrowing $1 million a
minute. we hardly have money for anything if you look at it. couldn't we start by not giving money to countries that hate us burn our flag and persecute christians? [ applause ] 18-2 to continue doing it. so last week i decided i'd give them another test. and it's been annoying me to no end that hamas and the palestinian authority have a unified government and yet hamas continues to launch missiles against israel. so really why would we be giving money, and we do. why would we be giving money to a unified government who may in reality be using that directly or indirectly to buy missiles to fire them against one of our best allies? so i said why don't we halt the aid. they can have it back, because you always have to have some sort of give it back to them.
we give it back to them if they recognize israel, renounce violence and quit doing what they've been doing and honor all the international treaties with regards to recognizing israel. i got a few more votes this time but it was still like 15-5. the thing is not only do they believe we should give away your money to other countries. they believe we should give it away regardless of the behavior. this is how we're going to project our power and influence the behavior of nations. and i said if you don't have any restrctions on it you aren't influencing anybody. you're just giving away the money. but it's been going on, year in year out, and washington is so -- i guess distant from the people, they don't understand this. this is your real problem. i'm convinced it's never getting better unless we do a couple of things. we need to limit every one of their terms and send them home.
every one of them. [ applause ] now that would be some good and some bad would go home. since mostly we've had a disproportionate amount of good versus bad up here that overall term limits would be a good idea. that's not directed to any one individual. it's about changing the system. after fdr, we decided that more than two tirms waserms was too much for the president. we limited the president to two terms and it passed overwhelmingly. i'm convinced if the american people were able to vote on term limits it's an 80% issue. if i go to a crowd half republican and half democrat the only thing that unites them is their disdain for congress. we should consider again how long we keep people up here. the other thing is the inertia is so strong. they say power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts. absolutely. they are absolutely right. there's too much power up here. the biggest problem -- what's the worst thing the president's done? it's the collapse -- it's a long list. i'm only going to get into generalities. it's -- the biggest problem the president has confronted us with is a collapse of the separation of powers. madison said that we would pit ambition against ambition. we would have co-equal branches of government and that congress would jealously guard their power against the president taking that power and vice versa. monescue, one of the flosser erphilosser ifs said, a tyranny will ensue. he writes his own legislation on immigration, health care, war powers act. he's been collecting your phone
records without your permission and he's prompted the court to continue doing it. i'm reminded of what lincoln said. lincoln said any man can stand adversity. if you want to test a man give him power. the reason i'm running for president is not to gain power, glory for myself. the reason i'm running for president is to take power away from government and give it back to the people. [ applause ] i think we succeed as a movement and as a party when we figure out how to take our message to new people. we need to be the party of the entire bill of rights. we need to take it to people who haven't been hearing that message. some say what we need to do is dilute our message and be more like the democrats and then
we'll get more votes. i think it's the opposite. i think we need to engage conservatives and say we're going to be as conservative as we promised. we're going to be as conservative as we promised. we're going to be to be boldly for what we are for. but then we have to figure out, what parts of our message might apply to people who might not have been listening to it. i spent the last year going to howard university on the south side of chicago, philadelphia and baltimore and ferguson and saying, i want to be the candidate. i want to be the party that's for the entire bill of rights. everybody's for the second amendment. all 55 candidates running for president are for the second amendment, on our side. but the thing is a lot of young people, that might not be their primary issue. they like the right to privacy enshrined in the fourth amendment. i tried to champion i'm all for looking at the records of terrorists but i want to do it
with a warrant, a judge's name on, it but not indiscriminately on everyone. with your phone records 85% of the time they can tell what your religion is. do we really want that information floating around the president obama's white house? we've seen what he's done to tea party groups. we've seen what he's done to religious liberty. it's not just about him, though. it's about giving that power to any president. a power that could be abused. if we're for the entire bill of rights, not just the second amendment, the fourth amendment, your right to privacy, but the sixth amendment and is about justice. it's about everybody being treated equally under the law regard little of the color of your skin. it is about minority rights. we should be the party of minority rights. here's the interesting thing. you can be a minority because of the color of your skin or the shade of your ideology.
you can be a minority because you teach your kids at home. you can be a minority because you still believe in right and wrong. you go to a church that wants to express right and wrong. you can be a minority because you're an evangelical christian. you can be a minority for a variety of rights. that's why we're a constitutional republic. we need to ensure that the protection of your freedoms, protection of your rights is never allowed to be manipulated or distorted or destroyed or taken away from you by a majority. we need to be the party of the entire biffle rights. i'll conclude with one story that shows you how this message of the bill of rights some people you may not have met before. kalief browder was a 16-year-old black kid from the bronx. he died last weekend. it makes me profoundly sad to think about what happened to him. he was accused of a crime in the bronx. he was put in prison for three years without a trial. the person who accused him of the crime was not here in the
country legally changed their story many times and never showed up. he was never ever tried. he was timely released from prison without a trial considered innocent because there was never a charge brought -- there was a charge but never a trial. in prison he was in solitary confinement for two years. he couldn't make bail. he was from a poor family. he was beaten by gangs in prison. he tried to commit suicide in prison several times. unfortunately, was timely successful last week. the thing is is that should never happen in america. you should never be in jail for three years without a tlil. the sixth amendment says you have the right to a speedy trial. we're going to be the biggest, most dominant party that wins most elections when we say we're going to protect the sixth amendment just as much as we'll protect the second amendment.
paul kanger tells the story of an 11-year-old boy who came home one day and saw his father drunk, passed out on the poeven. this boy had been to 17 different school districts. comes home sees his dad passed out, drunk in the snow on our front porch. this young boy was 11 years old. he could have gone inside could have gone somewhere else and pretended it wasn't his dad. but he reached down grabbed his dad by the overcoat put him to bed. this young man had something special about him. that's what we need to be looking for. this young man turned out to be ronald reagan, who grew up in a difficult home life but turned out to be one of our greatest leaders because he had strength of character, he had resolve and he had this sunny optimism that brought democrats and non-republicans to the party. when we find that again, we'll win. i want to be part of it and i hope you do, too. thanks for having me. [ applause ]
>> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> this is such an action-packed lunch. i love it. our next guest is a united states senator who cannot be accused of the mantel career politician. life in government service. any office in 2010 and dispensed with mayor and city council and state rep and went right for u.s. senate and won. having defeated liberal icon and incumbent democratic senate russ
fine gold in feingold in the state of wisconsin. ron johnson built with his brother-in-law a manufacturing business in the state of wisconsin, so he came to washington already knowing what it's like to be a job creator a budget balancer, not believing much in a debt ceiling. he brought those skills and principles to bear on his role in the united states senate. he and his wife have three children and reside in wisconsin. senator johnson was also on the receiving end of a famous quote. on january 23, 2013 he was asking a question in a committee hearing and basically said, i think the american public was misled to believe the attacks in benghazi that resulted in four dead americans resulted from a video or some protest. and the response he got from the witness was, the fact is we have four dead americans. what difference at this point does it make?
that was senator johnson who asked that question. to whom -- and secretary clinton, former secretary clinton supplied the answer. we thank him for his tenacious questioning as a member of several committees. we thank him also as somebody who has tried to enforce budget caps and said, you just can't simply raise the debt ceiling. we also thank him and value his voice in protecting moral issues. senator johnson recently announced his bid for re-election to united states senate, which will occur next year, in one of the most watched races in this country and i'm sure you'll be watching. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator ron johnson from wisconsin. [ applause ] >> thank you, kellie ann ralph and thank you for caring enough about this country to be involved.
i would like to tell you who i am. i normally don't do that. i'm kind of the odd man out here. i saw the list of speakers here and i am the guy that's not running for president. not going to make an announcement, other than that. but i also want to talk a little about problem solving. and the fact of the matter is, if we're going to solve problems in this nation i think we have to rely on renewed faith, strength in families, strong communities. the things that made this country great. i was asked to give a speech at university of wisconsin-oshkosh on constitution day. now, i'm not a constitution scholar. i'm an accountant. i'm a manufacturer. i'll have to admit my last formal education on the constitution was on seventh grade civics class. what i did that day when i talked about the constitution is i kind of turned it into how a business person would view the
constitution. you know in business you negotiate contracts and, you know, for my standpoint the easy part of negotiating a contract is the letter of intent. spells out what you're trying to accomplish by the contract which in our constitutional documents, i would call the declaration of independence the letter of intent the constitution is the more complex contract. one thing in busy found helpful, this is pretty good in solving problems, is mission vision statement. what i told the students that day, included in our founding letter of intent, declaration of independence is probably the most wondrous vision statement created for self-governance. you know what it is. we hold these truths to be self-evidence. by the way, i love that. self-evident, it's just so obvious. it's so obvious that all men are
created. they are endowed by their creator with certain enable rights. among those are life liberty, the pursuit of happiness. i always add that pursuit of happiness thing that's nothing frivolous. that's something serious. it's something difficult to obtain. now, i have been blessed in this country, like so many republicans and conservatives are serving we start from humble begins. we take advantage of the unlimited opportunities this nation presents us and we rise and live and achieve the american dream and we are grateful for it and we give back. i'll tell you the number one reason i've been able to obtain what success i've been able to garner is because i had two loving parents