and we want to look at both things and not take away any simple morals. >> peter barns, fox business. i wanted to check in with you again on whether or not you see or have concerns about bubbles particularly the financial market, debt and equity market. and i want to refer to the monetary report where you said overall equit leo are higher than the normal levels but in some sectors they are stretched relative to norms. in the same report last year in july the report specifically mentioned bio tech and social media stocks as being substantiatesub substantially stress. do you feel that way still? can you comment on the bubbles? >> janet: i don't want to comment on those specific sectors. overall evaluations are on the high side but not outside of historical ranges. in some corporate debt markets we do see evidence of unusually low spreads and that is what was referred to in the report. more broadly, we do try to assess potential threats to financial stability and in addition to looking at asset evaluations we look at measures of credit growth of the extent of leverage being used in the economy and the financial sector and the extent of matureity transformation and taking into account a broad range of metrics that bear on stability and the overall assessment is the threats are moderate. >> jen from politico. i want to switch gears and ask about some of the tension between fed and congress lately. it was some lawmakers calling for more transparency and accountability measures. i wanted to ask what degree there might be room for the fed to consider some of these measures like maybe a rules based approach like the taylor rule or a measure that would change up who has a voting seat on the fomc. to what degree does it make it more difficult to accomplish your mission? >> janet: so i believe the federal reserve is one of the most transparent central blanks around the globe. we provide emense amounts of information, both financially about our balance seat and monetary policy -- sheet -- operations. we have financial statements, we publish our balance sheet over week, if you want to know what the portfolio it is listed and i have press conferences and we issue minutes, we have statements that we release right after meetings and transcripts within five years. so if you put all of that together we are a transparent central bank. with respect to congressional changes that are under consideration that would politicize monetary policy by bringing congress into make policy judgments about, in real time on monetary policy decisions. congress itself decided in 1978 that that was a bad thing to do. that it would lead to poor economic performance and they carved out this one area of policy reviews of monetary policy decision making from goa audits. they look at everything that goes on within the feds and i think that is a central bank best practices. the global experience shows giving central banks independence to make monetary policy decisions they think are in the best interest of the country and consistent with mandates leads to lower inflation and more stable outcomes. i feel strongly about that but they are accountable to congress. of course we are ready to provide information that congress needs to evaluate the fed's decision making in monetary policy and elsewhere. with respect to monetary policy rules they can be useful and i find them useful in long half as a kind of bench mark for thinking about what might be the appropriate stance of policy. but to change the central bank to follow a central mathematical rule that fails to take into account many things that are very important in making monetary policy. for example, i was earlier asked about being against the zero lower bound which is an important special consideration and that would be a foolish thing to do and i oppose it. with respect to proposals having to do with voting and the structure of the feds that you mentioned a lot of ideas have been mentioned. i would say for my part, i think the federal reserve works well. the system we have was put into place by congress decades ago. i don't think it is a system that is broken. of course congress can revisit the decisions it mate about the structure of the fed -- made -- there were good reasons for making the decisions that were made about how the structure voting and other things. and i don't think it is the system that is broken. i think it is working well. so i don't see a need for changes but of course it is up to congress to review that. >> i was wondering whether you could quantify the effect the stronger dollar had on economic output and the extent it acted as its own rate increase and what obligation you feel if any, to make life easier for the bank of japan and many emerging markets that are struggling with issues we have not struggled with not too long ago. >> janet: with the respect of the u.s. dollar on the economy i don't have a quantitative estimate to offer you. but i expect net experts to serve as a notable drag on the outlook. but remember we have to put that in context. there are a lot of things that affect the u.s. outlook and while that is serving as a drag on economic growth overall the committee continues to see sufficient strength particularly in private spending that we are expecting above trend growth even so. with respect to our neighbors, we look very carefully at what is happening in the global environment. we realize our own policies affect performance in the rest of the world. and that performance in other countries has an influence on us so we spend a good deal of time discussing global developments. it is important to keep our own house in order, to put in place the policy that is consistent with the objectives that congress has given us. and i think a strong u.s. economy certainly is something that is good for other countries as well. we have pledged to communicate as cleary as we can about monetary policy and i am trying to do that and will continue to do so. >> nancy with market place. we talked about the risk of tightening too early. what about the risk of waiting too long? especially since it can take a while for fed actions to work their way through the economy. >> janet: i agree with that. many, many studies over decades have shown there are lags in the way monetary policy affects the economy. and therefore monetary policy does have to be forward looking. that is why we spend so much time preparing forecast is discussing them. we want to put in place a policy that will be appropriate for where the economy is heading. that is a reason that you know many of my colleagues, most of them, are anticipating it will be appropriate to tighten policy sometime this year in spite of the fact they are projecting that inflation will be low. they are looking forward and they see that by the end of 2016 or 2017 with the labor market recovering and assuming that inflation expectations remain stable and influences are no longer affecting inflation they see it headed back to the 2% objective. just as we don't want to be premature in tightening policy and aborting a recovery we have worked long and hard to proceed as far as it has we also don't want to be behind the curve in the need to tighten given those lags. >> madam chair, i would like to preface this by saying i believe we stand for accountability. recently a bunch of us were in the room and there was a police officer outside and the staff took the cellphone and controlled the internet in the room to regard the safety of the fomc statements. if one leaked it we would lose our jobs there would be a prosecution and our fans in the press would have a banner day. there was a leak in the fomc. we don't know what happened. i have asked. i cannot get an answer and now congress is asking. both parties want to happen. i am not asking about the ig's probe. i understand that is an active case suddenly after two years of just sitting there. but i would like to ask what you found at the board. you were not chairman there but vice chairman. what answers do you have and will you respond to congress? >> janet: let me say the committee and i take it serious the responsibility to safeguard private information. we have a set of policy and procedures that are in place that wiretapping to follow if we believe there have been leaks of confidential information and this is something that doesn't occur very often but if it does occur we follow those procedures. it has been reported that our inspector general is engaged in a review at this time of this matter. and in light of that ongoing review i am not going to get into details but let me just say that we welcome that review and are looking forward to its conclusions with respect to congress congressional inquiry and we will brief them and provide them with the information they seek as best as we can. >> madam chair, thank you for taking my question. the banking sector has clearly improved since the crisis in terms of capital retention, but there is also seemingly a number of scandals involving four-x manipulation and lie borg. do you think the culture at the banks is where it should be? if not what will the feds to do to improve it and when? >> janet: well it certainly has been disappointed to see what have been some brazen violations of the law. and we absolutely expect the banks we supervise to comply with the law and to have in place controlled and ensure compliance and organizations. and while changing the culture of the organization is not something we can achieve through super supervision we will make sure the banks we supervise have regimes in place and to the extent compersonsation schemes might be enforcing the behavior and reward risk taking and that is something we will look for in our supervision as well. [inaudible question] >> you introduced a compensation roll in 2011. when do you think we will see movement on that rule? >> janet: the agencies are working jointly to bring out a rule on this but we have supervisor policies in place carping -- concerning the structure of incentive pay and comp compensation and we have seen meaningful changes already in the structure of compensation and banking organizations to diminish ways in which it might incent risk taking. >> i guess i have two follow-ups. one sin regard to craig's -- is in -- question. before the ig's investigation recording to the republican congressmen's letter to your office. he said the federal counsel was initially involved but it was dropped at the members of the f-1c. who the are members of the fmc that struck down the investigation and doesn't not revealing the facts go against the transparency and accountability you are trying to bring to the central bank? >> janet: that is an allegation i don't believe has any bases in fact. i am not going to go into the details but i don't know where that piece of information could have possibly come from. >> i think when you get asked about financial crimes and the public hears you talk about compliance you get a sense there is not enough enforcement involved in the actions and it is merely a case of trying to achieve settlements after the fact. is there a sense of the regulatory community that financial crimes need to be punished more forcefully for them to be a deterrent? >> janet: the focus of the banking regulators is safety and soundness. and what we want to see is changes made as rapidly as possible that will eliminate practices that are unsafe and unsound. we can't -- only the justice department can bring criminal action. and they have taken up cases where they think that is appropriate. in some situations when we are able to identify individuals who are responsible for misdeeds we can put in place prohibitions that bar them from participating in banking and we have done so and will continue to do so. >> steve beckner of mmi. good afternoon, madam chair. the fomc said last september that they will wait until after the first rate hike to stop or discontinue reinvesting procedures in bf holdings and stop rolling over the treasuries. what is the fomc's current thinking about how long after lift off you should wait to stop reinvestments and rollovers. and given the large amount of treasury matureu maturing next we're would it make sense to vary the pace of the runoff it allows. >> janet: we issued a set of normalization principles in september. and as you noted the committee indicated we will eventually stop reinfestment or diminish the pace of reinvestments as a way of gradually reducing the size of the portfolio over time. we said we would do that come economic conditions were appropriate after we begin raising rates because we want changes in the target range for the federal funds rate to be the main tool by which we shift the stance of monetary policy. we have not made any decision at this point about how long it will be once we begin to raise rates before we reduce or seize ryin reinvestment and we will see how it goes and revisit and make a decision at at a later time. you indicated we have a substantial amount of quantities that will roll over the balance sheet over the next years and that is true. i think over the next two years $800 billion will mature and they will be short-term obviously at that point and that is a way in which we anticipate diminishing the size of our portfolio. >> some people have suggested that you might need to manage those runoffs a little more granularly if that is a word and perhaps pursue a different tract for treasuries or given quarters when you have a large amount maturing and there might be a spike in long-term interest rates and maybe you would vary the rate of runoff. any consideration given to that? >> janet: that is something for which we have made no plans. i don't really have anything for you on that. >> greg rob from market watch. we hear that productivity takes a long time before you can understand it. but it has been low in this cycle. what does that mean for fed policy? >> janet: a agree it has been disappointingly low. an aspect of what is a disappointment is that the labor market improved more rapidly than might have been expected given the pace of economic growth. so the unemployment rate has come down more rapidly than i would have expected and the labor market is improving more rapidly than i would have expected. we have written down our estimates of potential output. in the long run it is disappointing and a factor about the ultimate prospects of the u.s. economy if it continues. i would expected it to pickup and from the longer run growth projections most fomc participants believe it will pickup above current levels but it means it is something, if it persist, with hard living standards and would like retard real wage growth improvement and living standards for households. >> peter coke with bloomburg television. one clarification and then a question about congress. first of all you have been asked this before. when you decide to start raising interest rates could that happen at a meeting in which it is not falloyed by >> janet: let me reiterate this and this is a live meeting at which we could just make a decision. clearly, if we decided for the first time to raise the federal funds rate it is something that i think it would be appropriate to answer questions and explain in more detail. we would expect to use if it were necessary. on the second part of your question with respect to testimony, you know it is very important for the federal reserve to be accountable to congress. we have a wide range of responsibilities and it is entirely appropriate for me to testify and be quizzed on a range of topics by members of congress. you know i think i need to be ready to answer questions on any aspect of federal reserve behavior and that is an important principle. >> coming up president obama discusses the economy and manufacturing at a town hall meeting in cleveland followed by a senate commerce meeting examining the fcc's new policy and then another chance to see the remarks by the federal reserve's chair janet yellen. >> coming up, the president's request for military force against sis and we sit down with the house armed service committee member larson of wasserman. and then chris stewart will discuss the obama negotiations are iran. plus your calls, tweets and e-mails starting at 7 a.m. on c-span. >> this weekend we partner to learn about the history and lit literary life of columbus. >> this is an iran clad built here. the oval shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. it is armed with six brook rifles. the particular rifle that is firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama and completed in january of 1965. this is connect today the era and there are only four iran clads from the civil war we can study right now and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it is here to tell the story of this particular iron clad and showing people there are more than just one or two iron clads but many. >> watch the events from columbus on saturday on c-span2 and on sunday afternoon on c-span3. mitch mcconnell said the chamber is not going to vote on the nomination of lynch to be the next attorney general until they complete the sex trafficking bill. dick durbin expressed frustration during remarks on the sensate floor. here is a look: >> the fath is there is no reason to stop this nomi nationnation. the republican speaker said he will hold the nomination of lynch until the bill before the senate passes wherever that might be. so lynch, the first african-american woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when the comes to the senate calendar. that is unfair. ... unjust. it is beneath the decorum and dignity of the united states senate. this woman deserves fairness. she seeks to lead the department of justice and the united states senate should be just in its treatment of her nomination. to think that we would jeopardize her opportunity to serve this nation and to make history is [applause] ♪ ♪ >> hello cleveland. [applause] thank you so much. thank you. thank you everybody. please, please have a seat. it's good to be back in cleveland. let me begin by thanking paul for the wonderful introduction. i want to acknowledge some of my favorite members of congress. senator sherrod brown is here. [applause] i actually like his wife connie a little more. [applause] i'm not alone in that. but he is okay too. congresswoman cap there is here. [applause] congresswoman fudge is here. [applause] mayor jackson is here. thank you so much mr. mayor. [applause] is around here somewhere. i want to thank don and the members of the city club for inviting me here today. it is wonderful to be back in the city and i see a lot of friends and in some cases mentors. it's wonderful to see you again. he is one of my favorite people. [applause] every sitting president since ronald reagan has come here to the city club of cleveland to take your questions and that's because this is an institution that reflects what is a truly american idea. that is the belief that all of us have a role to play in resolving the most important issues of our time. in a democracy the most important office is the office of citizen and the city club tradition reflects that. now over the course of my presidency, one that began in the depths of a historic crisis no issue has been more important than the future of our economy. that's certainly been of great interest in ohio and in cleveland. no topics weigh more heavily on the minds of ordinary families and no subject is more worthy of a great big open debate. 75 years ago another president came to cleveland to engage in this debate. he was nearing the end of his second term. eight years and up is marked by a devastating pressure, a hard-fought recovery fierce political divisions at home looming threats overseas. but for all the challenges of a changing world fdr refused to accept the notion that we are anything less than the masters of our faith. we are characters in this living book of democracy he said but we are also its authors. it falls upon us now to say whether the chapters that are to come will tell a story of retreat or of continued advance. that is a pretty good summary of where we are today. that was the choice that was laid out back then, a story of retreat or a story of continued advance. america chose the latter and we are better for it. -3/4 of a century later we face a similar choice. in a world changing even faster than his duly retrieved from the realities of the 21st century economy or economy or do we continue to advance together to renew this country's founding promise of opportunity for everybody and not just some. so before i take questions i want to spend some time talking about that choice and i want to set the stage by talking about where the economy is today. following the worst economic crisis since the great depression and that by some measures the contraction of our economy was faster and deeper than the great recession we just pulled out of that faster because we have learned lessons from the past. we are now in the midst of the longest streak of private sector jobs growth on record, 60 consecutive month, five straight years, 12 million new jobs. [applause] america's businesses have added more than 200,000 jobs each month for 12 straight months. that's the first time that has happened in nearly 40 years. our unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10% in 2009 when i first came into office. we were losing jobs at a pace of almost 800,000 jobs per month. today the unemployment rate is at 5 .5%. [applause] just last year we saw the fastest unemployment rate decline in 30 years and in one of the most hopeful signs middle-class wages are finally starting to take up again. they are finally starting to go up. this progress is no accident. first and foremost it's the direct result of you the pride in the determination of the american people. but i'm going to take a little credit. [applause] it's also the result -- the. [applause] is also the result of decisions made by my administration in partnership with some of these members of congress who are here to prevent a second depression and to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity. a lot of those decisions were controversial. and there was a lot of persistence and obstruction but we decided to continue to advance. we believe that if the last decade was defined by outsourcing of good jobs overseas than we could define this decade by bringing back the jobs to america. today there are more job openings in the united states than at any time since 2001. the auto industry that we rescued despite the fact that it was not popular at the time is firing on all cylinders. that's making a difference right here in ohio. [applause] factories are opening their doors at the fastest pace in nearly two decades. over the last five years manufacturers have added jobs at a rate not seen since the 1980s. we talked about manufacturing being dead, you know what? manufacturing is growing at a faster pace than the rest of the economy. more foreign companies are realizing that made in the usa is a trademark to be proud of than and they are choosing to invest in america. something i'm going to discuss next week at our selectu.s.a. summit where we get local and state officials and economic development organizations to meet with foreign investors from around the world and one-stop shopping to start getting more businesses and investment right here in the united states. we believe that we could prepare our kids and workers for mayor mayor -- more competitive world and today our younger students earn the highest math and reading scores on record. our high school graduation hit another all-time high. more americans are earning their degrees than ever before. we believed we could grow the economy and create new jobs even while they were reducing our dependence on foreign oil and even as we were tackling climate change to protect our climate. today america is not just number one in oil and gas, we are number one in wind power. last year was the biggest year for solar powers in our history. we are producing three times as much wind power and 10 times as much solar powers we did when i came to office. [applause] every three weeks we produce as much solar power as we did in all of 2008 and just last month the world's largest solar installation came on line from the california desert. the solar industries adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy and meanwhile thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards the typical family this year should save more than 700 bucks at the pump. will we believed sensible regulations could prevent another crisis in shield families from ruin and encourage fair competition and today we have got the tools to stop taxpayer-funded bailouts. we have a new consumer watchdog to protect families from predatory lending and credit card practice of saving billions of dollars to american consumers. oh and by the way there is this thing called the affordable care act. more than 60 million more americans have gained the security of health care coverage. [applause] we have cut the ranks of the uninsured by a third thanks to some tough proud foes by these members of congress. last year the growth in health care premiums the costs for business matched its lowest level on record. if premiums had kept on growing over the last four years at the rate they had the previous decade the average family premium would be $1800 higher than it is today. we don't get a lot of credit for that but keep in mind some of the reforms that we are putting in place are not only giving more people insurance but we are actually reducing the overall cost 1800 bucks in people's pockets. they don't notice it because it's what didn't happen. that's $1800 that firms can use to hire and it does. $1800 that you are spending on a computer for your kids or to help pay down debt and stabilizer finances were to put into your retirement. finally we believe that we could lay this new foundation for growth while still getting our fiscal house in order. as you'll recall when i first came into office deficits were skyrocketing partly because the economy was plummeting. less tax revenue coming in, more going out. and the notion was that the steps we took to ensure the economy recovered was going to cause even higher deficits. red ink as bars that i could see. since i took off as we have cut our deficits deficit as a share of our economy by two-thirds two-thirds. [applause] and looking forward our long-term deficit reductions have improved in part because we have done such a good job in controlling health care costs. the affordable care act alone will cut our deficit by more than a trillion dollars over the next two decades. the slowing growth in health care costs and save medicare system tens of billions of dollars. health care was the single biggest factor driving up our projected deficits. it's now the single biggest factor driving them down. this is progress that every american should be proud of. we have got a long way to go. i am not satisfied and i know you aren't either. we have a lot more work to do. any american will tell you that. but we have emerged from what was a once in a generation crisis better positioned for the future than any of our competitors. we picked ourselves up dusted ourselves off, retooled, retrained, refocus. the united states of america is coming back. now i want to return to the issue of the debate we were having been because it bears on the debate we are having now. it's important to note that at every step we have taken over the past six years we were told our goals were misguided, they were too ambitious that my administration's policies would crush jobs and support deficits and destroy the economy forever. remember that? because sometimes we don't do the instant replay. we don't run the tape back and then we end up having the same argument going forward. one republican in congress warned our policies would diminish employment and diminish stock prices. diminish stock prices. the stock market has doubled since i came in to office. corporate prophets corporate balance sheets are stronger than they have ever been. because of my terrible business policies. one republican senator claimed we face a trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. another predicted my re-election would spike gas prices to $6.60 a gallon. i don't know how he came up with that figure. my opponent and outlast election pledged that he could bring down the unemployment rate to 6% by 2016. next year. at the end of next year. it's 5.5 now. [applause] and right here in cleveland. the leader of the house republicans, a good friend of mine. you know he captured his party's economic theories by critiquing mine with a very simple statement. where are the jobs? i am sure there was a headline in the paper. where other jobs? after 12 million new jobs the stock market that is double deficits cut by two-thirds in health care inflation at the lowest rate in nearly 50 years manufacturing coming back the auto industry coming back, clean energy double i have come not only to answer that question but i want to return to the debate that is central to this country and the alternative economic theory presented by the other side. because their theory does not change. it really doesn't. it's a theory that says if we do little more than just cut taxes for those at the very top to strip out regulations and let special interest right there on rules prosperity trickles down to the rest of us. and i take the opposite view. and i take it not for ideological reasons but for historic reasons because of the evidence. we know from the facts that they are there for all to see that america does better, our economy does better, everybody does better when the middle class does better and we have more ladders for people to get into the middle class if they are willing to work hard. we do better when everyone grows together top middle and bottom. we do better when everyone has a chance not only to benefit from america's success but also to contribute to america's success. we know from our recent history that when they stray from that ideal it doesn't turn out well. we have now got evidence there is a better way. there is a better approach and i'm calling it middle-class economics. for the first eight years of the century before i came into office we tried trickle-down economics. we slash taxes for folks at the top, stripped out regulations didn't make investments in the things we know we need to grow. at the end of those eight years we had soaring deficits, record job losses and an economy in crippling recession. in a year since then we have tried middle-class economics and today we have dramatically lower deficits to record year for job creation to an economy that has steadily grown. so when we the american people come, when the public evaluate who has got the better argument we have got to look at the facts. it's not abstractions. there may been a time when you could just say while those two theories are equally valid. they are differences of opinion. they could've been abstract economic arguments in a book somewhere. not anymore. reality has rendered its judgment. trickle-down economics does not work and middle-class economics does and that is what we should keep in mind when we think about what's going to take us forward. not down a path where we slow down businesses by slashing investments in the future. a path where we put our economy at risk again with government shutdowns or fiscal shutdowns. not a path were just a few of us do spectacularly well and folks who are working hard see there and, their wages and their financial security lowered. we need to go forward to an economy generating rising incomes and chances for everybody who is willing to work hard. on the continued advance where we invest in our future. give working americans the tools to determine their own faith. research, education, infrastructure, job training. we know the recipe for growth and we know we can make both broad-based and we can raise incomes and wages in the process and those incomes and wages may get plowed back into businesses and investment and we hit on a virtual cycle. now a good place to start down a stronger path involves america's budget. the blueprint for what we believe this country should do. where should we go? the budget is not just numbers on a page. it reflects our values and our priorities. republicans in congress have been working hard to reposition their rhetoric around the economy. they started noticing that people would like to see someone champion in middle-class and folks who are trying to get into the middle class so we have seen a shift in how they talk about the issues. there is one republican who said she couldn't agree with him or that we need to be helping working moms and dads more. on another policy -- was saying republicans must define themselves the party of the american worker, the party of higher wages. another urged his party to shout at the top of its lungs the gop is the ticket to the middle-class. now this is good. this is a good development. i am encouraged by this because once you get everybody talking about the same thing now we can decide how do we do it? if we can at least share our goals, the goal is strengthening the middle-class creating more ladders of opportunity for the middle-class raising wages. that's good. there is nothing i would like more than an opposition party that works with me to help hard-working americans get ahead. i don't have another election to run. let's go let's work. the problem though is so far at least the rhetoric does not match the reality. the walk doesn't sync up with a talk. all you have to do is look at the budget that house republicans put forward just yesterday. it's a budget that doesn't just embrace middle-class economics come it's the opposite of middle-class economics. it devils down trickle-down economics. you can do fact-checking on this. they are budget rolls out even more to those who already have the most. makes massive cuts to investments that benefit all of us. as middle-class families to foot the bill. it's a budget that claims that reducing our deficit should be our highest priority despite the fact that the deficit has been reduced by two-thirds but his very first proposal, its centerpiece is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars may be trillions of dollars on another giant tax cut slanted overwhelmingly in favor of the for those at the top. if you are claiming the deficit reduction is your number one priorities how can you start by giving a tax cut to everybody? at the top and not doing much to help folks in the economic. med. under the republican budget millionaires and billionaires would get a tax cut of $50,000 per year. translation, the average millionaire would take home as much in tax cuts as the average middle-class american makes in an entire year. now they say they will close high-income tax loopholes for folks at the top which i put some specific proposals for how we can do that. they are budget does not name a single loophole it would close not one. this budget does provide nothing to prevent tax cuts from expiring for 26 million working families and students. i mean these are folks who for almost two decades now i've gone without a raise but they are budget with these tax cuts expire. that's the equivalent of a thousand dollar year pay cut for these families. so you can call cutting taxes for the top 1% while letting taxes rise for working families a lot of things. what you can call it is a ticket to the middle-class. that you cannot do. allowing tax cuts for working families to expire doesn't get you close to this budget cut at all cost goal at 5 trillion dollars in deficit reductions. republican leaders say we need to keep bringing down our deficits. i think we should bring art deficits down. my budget would keep our deficits below 3% of gdp. that's a rate that most economists agree protects or fiscal health. because house republicans want to balance a budget without asking any sacrifices of the wealthiest americans in fact asking them to sacrifice last means everyone else has to sacrifice more. middle-class more. the authors of this budget were careful not to get too specific about the cuts they propose and they imply no matter who you are somebody else is going to bear the burden. but compared to the plan i have put forward the cuts they propose were to fall equally on everybody here is some of what would happen over the next two years. we are getting two questions. i really have to bear down on this thing. investments in education will be cut to their lowest levels since 2000, 15 years ago at a time when we know we need to be upping our game in education because of competition around the world. 157,000 fewer children have a chance to get early education through head start. more than 8 million low-income students would see their financial aid cut. investments in job training would be cut to the point where more than 4 million fewer workers would have the chance to earn higher wages for programs to help them upgrade. we would and partnerships that helped 30,000 small manufacturers grow businesses and create jobs including right here in cleveland. these aren't just new cuts. these are some of the greatest hits on this broken record. and just as more working families are finally to beginning to feel security in their lives to republican budget would strip health insurance for millions of americans. it would take away coverage from millions more who rely on medicaid including right here in ohio nursing home patients children with autism parents of children with disabilities who need at-home care. they would try once again to god the guarantee of the center of medicare by turning it into a voucher program. instead of the promise of health care will be there for you when you need it you get a roll of the dice. if you get sick and that voucher isn't enough to cover the cost of your care then you win but if not you lose. programs that help low income parents care for sick children or buy food for their families or put a roof over their heads all those would be in the crosshairs. in a time of evolving threats overseas the republican budget despite all the talk they have about national security would actually cut our core national security funding to its lowest level in a decade and still those at the top aren't asked to sacrifice a single dime. so lower taxes, the most well-off higher taxes for working families. gutted investments in education and job training at the structure military and our national security. kicking tens of millions of americans off of their health insurance ending medicare as we know it. if you have heard these kinds of arguments about this kind of budget before that's because you have seen this kind of budget before. republicans in congress have put forward the same proposals year after year after year regardless of the realities of the economy. when the economy is in a slump we need tax cuts. when the economy is doing well you know what let's try some tax cuts. we know now that the gloom and doom predictions that justify this budget three, four or five years ago were wrong. despite the economic progress despite the mountains of new evidence their approach hasn't changed. there is nothing wrong with changing your opinion if the underlying facts change, serious economic proposals change when the underlying assumptions are proven false. if republicans believe we should adhere to a set of abstract principles even though they hurt the middle class than they should make the case. show us, prove it to us. if they believe it's time to end the social contract that sustain so many of us the basic bargain of shared sacrifice and responsibility, own it and make the argument you can't credibly claim the visions of helping families get ahead at the same argument about health care that it was one thing for them to argue against obamacare before was put into place. every prediction they have made has turned out to be wrong. so it's working better than i expected. [applause] but it doesn't matter. [applause] evidence be. it's still a disaster. why? the truth is the budget they have put forward in the theories they are part forward our path to prosperity for those who are ready prosper. in that sense it's a story of retreat. i'm offering a different path. the budget i have put forward is built on middle-class economics. the idea that everybody does best when everybody gets their fair shot and everybody plays by the same set of rules and it reflects the realities by giving every american the tools they need to get ahead in a fast-paced constantly changing world. it means to helping working families feel more secure and that's why my budget makes no investments to make it easier for folks to afford childcare and college and paid leave and retirement. lowering the taxes of working families putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year. middle-class economics means preparing americans earn higher wages down the road. that's why my budget makes new investments from pre-k to career job training. i want to make sure all of our kids get a great education from the earliest age and young people can afford to go to college without getting buried under a mountain of debt. [applause] we are working with private companies and community colleges and universities and businesses to provide apprenticeships and on-the-job training in pathways to the middle class. i have proposed making two years of community college is free and universal as high school is today to up our game. [applause] is third middle-class economics means building the most competitive economic -- and right before i came here i went to magnet manufacturing and get beta right here in cleveland for smaller companies are making everything from airplane parts and medical devices to whiskey. i did not sample the whiskey before i came here. although i'm taking a sample home. [applause] this partnership is bringing good jobs back to cleveland and the republican budget would cut the whole thing entirely. if something is working why would we get rid of it? we should invest in it. which is why today i announce nearly $500 million in new public and private investment for american manufacturing and that includes -- who. [applause] that includes a new manufacturing that will make america the leader in producing high-tech fabrics for uniforms our soldiers where. 21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure which is why my budget invests in modern ports and stronger bridges and faster trains and the fastest internet and invest in basic research so that jobs and industries of the future are created here in the united states. and we can pay for these investments in a responsible way now by adding to the deficit. we just need to cut wasteful loopholes in the past those at the top to pay their fair share and reform our tax code to make our businesses more competitive. and we can keep our exports and protect our workers with a strong new trade deal first in asia than in europe that are fair. i've had a lot of conversations with delegation from ohio was about this because here in ohio we saw first-hand a lot of past trade deals didn't always live up to the hype. that is why the trade deal i'm negotiating now transpacific partnership would reform nafta with higher labor standards higher environmental standards new tools to hold countries accountable would focus on the impact it's having on american workers and would make sure the rules of the 21st century economy and some of the largest markets in the world are run by china. they need to be run by the initiative america and that is what this does. so helping our working families make ends meet giving them the tools they need for a new economy revving the engines of growth and competitiveness. that's what middle-class economics offers. that is where america needs to go. if we make these investments in ourselves and our prosperity and future this economy is not going to just be stronger a year from now or five years ago -- for now but it will be stronger for decades and it falls upon us now now. remember those words of fdr it falls upon us now to say whether the chapters that are tell a story of retreat or a story of continued advance. i believe in continued advance. the challenges of that generation of americans has faced they are less dire than those that the greatest generation endured what we have got the same well and the same dry. we have the same i need optimism to shape an american century. we know what works. we know all we have to do and we have just got to put aside the stale and outmoded debates reject failed policies, embrace the policies that we know work embraced the promise of the future and we are not just going to the move forward, we are going to write the next great chapter of our continued advance in this living book of democracy. thank you cleveland. god bless you. [applause] let's take some questions. [applause] a positive. [applause] so i can just start calling on people, right? i like that. the only thing i'm going to do is raise your hand and i will call on you. introduce yourself and i will go boy girl, boy girl. [laughter] we will start with the young lady right there. right here. >> thank you. >> would you name? >> my name is calling in on the executive director of the legal aid society of cleveland my question for you mr. president thank you so much for coming to cleveland. my question is you talk about the importance of everyone playing by the same rules. unfortunately millions of americans because we do not have the right to court-appointed counsel in civil cases enforce the rules that are off to protect them whether it's tenants consumers preventing foreclosure. how do you propose we address that important issue? >> as you know we have worked hard to continue to support legal aid around the country. this was a target of slashed budgets early in the previous administration. we have not fully recovered and with the existing congress it's unlikely to get the kind of bump up that we need. two things i think we can do is one, in addition to the federal government helping i think we can elicit more from law firms than they currently cost up. young lawyers are eager to participate if it structured properly. the other thing is to create in various jurisdictions more efficient effective civil procedures potentially that can streamline the process because a lot of the clients you work with with -- we don't need a full-blown court process filings and motions that has taken forever and oftentimes when people are in desperate straits let's say they cheated on something by a landlord or they bought a product and it turned out to be faulty and they are trying to get relief, they can't necessarily afford some lengthy process in your office should be reserved for the toughest cases so there are ways in which we can structure more effective dispute resolution mechanisms. now that's going to necessarily operate jurisdiction by jurisdiction but some jurisdictions have come up with some creative ways to fill the holes. a consequence is a legal aid cuts that took place a long time ago and what we should do is highlight this best practices to see if we can get them duplicated across-the-board but thank you for the good work you are doing. product. it's a gentleman's turn. let's see, right there. nice looking bow tie. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> on the superintendent of shaker heights city schools and you've visited us twice already. >> a great school system. >> i wasn't superintendent at the time but it's a great school system and still is. my question is regarding the community college initiative initiative and how it affects the middle class. i think some of our community colleges here in cleveland as well as across the country get a bad reputation. they don't provide a high-quality education which i believe that they do how can we better convey a message to all of our constituents and a possible future of community college enrolled students? how can we convey the message that the community college does have a high-quality education? >> i will tell you what. i'm doing my darndest to advertise because you know one of our greatest comparative interest is our higher education system here in the united states. obviously we have got the best universities in the world and people flock from everywhere to try to get their education but we also have an unparalleled community college system and there are places like lorraine that are doing great work but the challenge we have god is that they are underutilized oftentimes we are not linking what community college is arguing that high schools on the one hand and four-year universities and businesses on the other. so part of our initiative is not just to make the first two years of community college free because not everybody needs a four-year education. some people may be interested in graphic design or adjusted and manufacturing processes or even in some cases high-tech jobs that don't require a four-year degree but do require some advanced training. if they can get that first two years free without that plugs into a business they save money. they don't have all those student loans to pay. they can work for a time, learn learned more in their career and maybe they go back and decide to get a higher degree. if they decide to take the community college and springboard into a four-year university they transfer credits and they just save themselves half the cost of that four-year college degree. so what we are trying to do is create more and more partnerships suited for a particular inclination aptitude needs of the public. in some cases what is needed for example for a midcareer person is a quick training program that gives them in a job right away. increasingly what we are doing is working with community colleges to reach out to the businesses and their community where there are job openings that tap the business helped design the training program. collapse the training program. a midcareer person who needs a job right away maybe a single mom for a guy who has been laid off and now needs to get back in the workforce, they don't have the luxury of two years of study. get them in to something where six, 810 weeks of training in right now if you complete the successfully we know there'll be a job for you because the business helped design the program. if you are a high school student who is interested in doing something that doesn't necessarily require a four-year degree we are getting community colleges to link up at the high school ahead of time, the high school student can then start getting credit, get hands-on experience in some cases with businesses who are partnering with the community college and now that high school student has gotten a head start on moving into the career and they are also saving money in the process. if it's a student who wants to go to a four-year university but they don't have the money to come to cleveland state. you know cleveland state is a pretty good price relative to other schools, go to community college first but make sure they are getting upfront the kind of counseling that they need so that they are taking the credits that are transferable in the fields that they need so they are not wasting time in the community college taking out the grants and loans and they get to the four-year anniversary and have to start all over again. each of these cases by us linking businesses four-year institutions community colleges high schools we can create a series of pathways of success and it can be lifelong. the great thing about community colleges as they are flexible in ways that four-year institutions because of the nature of those institutions, it's a little harder to do. community college can adapt to any quickly sold to a new business comes to town we need machine tool operators are coders or we need whatever it is potentially even designed something quickly that it's effective and makes an immediate difference. we have put a lot of resources into community colleges. we are highlighting his programs. we are encouraging the kinds of links that i have just described and we are going to keep on doing it. [applause] okay, let's see. right there. she is very excited. >> my name is helen sheehan and welcome to cleveland. we love this city hard-working city and hard-working county so thank you for coming. i have a two-part question. first who is in your bracket? [laughter] >> i wasn't that creative. i think kentucky is going to take it but you know i had one since my first year in office. clearly i'm not spending as much time watching college basketball as i once did so i wouldn't necessarily take my bracket in confidence. although i suspect i'm not the only person picking kentucky. >> the second part of my question since you have been in office what a surprise to the most? >> that's an interesting question. what has surprised me the most? i will start by saying what has not surprise me. i'm not surprised that decency and determination and grit and resilience in hard-working american people and the fact that they are not as divided as washington would seem to reflect. [applause] i travel around the country a lot. one of the great things about being president is you pretty much can go anywhere. you say hey i want to come by okay. so you can go to factories and community colleges. you can go to national parks and you can go to every state and meet people and it turns out when i talked about in 2004 about this being a united states of america it really is true outside of washington. and that's encouraging. that makes me happy. what has surprised me even though i have served in the senate was the continued difficulties in congress getting stuff done that shouldn't be controversial. there are some issues that i knew would be controversial. i mean we know if there is a debate in congress about abortion that's a bit of controversy. there are strong held these and they are hard to reconcile and that's part of democracy and it never gets perfectly resolved but i have been pushing for us to fund infrastructure since i came into office because we have $2 trillion worth of dilapidated roads, bridges, sewer lines and then there's a whole new upper structure we have to build in terms of the smart grid that is more secure and reliable in terms of how we use energy in making it more efficient. their broadband lines that still need to be going out of every part of the country. the recovery act that i passed with the help of these members of congress on may 1 came in didn't just help to avert a recession, it also was the largest investment in infrastructure in decades and we made significant processes -- progress. for example and just getting broadband lines into rural area so we have made progress but we still have a whole bunch to do and if you talk privately to our republican friends they will say we really need to do some of upper structure. while why are we doing it? and the reason is the degree to which constant campaigning and the polarization of the bases and the inability it seems to just agree on a core set of facts means even when some of our republican friends want to work with us they are worried that they will get attacked or they will be viewed as compromisers or they will get a primary challenge by somebody further to the right and it becomes hard to just get basic stuff done. obviously the greatest example of this was when the government was shut down. or recently the threat that the department of homeland security department was shut down. we can have a significant debate about immigration. not everybody is going to agree with my view that we are a nation of members and we have a broken system and we can craft an immigration agenda that holds into account folks who can't get here legally, forces them to have a background check. they have to pay back-taxes but it gives them a pathway and in turn strengthens our borders. that is my view. it's good for the economy, point to the evidence but i understand some folks won't agree with me. the notion that you would then threaten to not fund the very department that is responsible for securing our borders because you were mad that our borders are not secure that's not a good way of doing business. [applause] so that surprises me a little bit. [laughter] and i think there is a connected issue and i will make this last point and go to the next question. i think it's hard for voters to see why it is that things aren't working washington. they get frustrated that they are not working but there is this sense partly because the media is so splintered that. if you are watching "fox news" to get an entirely different reality than if you were watching "msnbc" so everything is just like an opinion but there are hard cold facts about how things work and who has been responsible and who is not. the challenge is making sure voters are aware of that and hold elected officials accountable for their positions. that's why talk about the budget budget. the republican budget will not end up getting passed. my budget won't be passed given i have to work with the republican congress but it is a reflection of what our priorities are and it's good for people to know what's in there. our democracy only works when we are informed enough that we can say you know what, i don't think we should cut medicaid for families that have that disabled child. that's not who we are. i know my neighbor who relies on that and that's important. i may not like obama but if i have got and we know there are 16 million people who now have health insurance and my health insurance hasn't been affected and in fact health care premiums across-the-board are going up at a slower rate than they have in 50 years you know it's not clear to me why i would want to have 60 million people suddenly not have health insurance who would go to the emergency room and i will end up paying for it because somebody has to pay for them. i will have to pay higher premiums. it's that if we know what the issues are and who is taking up positions, then i think our democracy functions well. right now what happens is people here there is a mess there's an argument they are at it again and oftentimes people would just withdraw and don't vote. and then people are cynical and dissatisfied and that actually empowers special interest in the status quo which we want to discourage. that was probably too long an answer. it's a gentleman's turn. let me ask that young man right there in the purple shirt. that is a good looking shirt right there. >> what's your name? >> my name is nelson. >> what year are you in? >> a junior. >> starting to have to take all those tests. malia is going through that. are you getting enough sleep? >> yeah. >> okay, good. what is your question? i'm sorry. >> how can you inspire someone who wants to follow political career path to become the best they possibly can in future -- the. >> are you interested? that's great, i'm proud of you for that. my most important advice is worry more about what you want to do rather than what you want to be. and what do i mean by that? i think there are a lot of folks who get into politics and they say to themselves i want to be a blank. i want to be a congressman or i want to be a senator or i want to be a governor or i want to be a president so than their focus is on i want to get that position. that leads some ambitious people to say it doesn't matter to me what i stand for as long as i get the position. and you end up maybe if you are talented enough getting the position but along the way you haven't really accomplished much. and if you do get the position you don't know why you are there or what you want to do with it. i think that politics and public service is an incredibly noble profession but it's a hard life as these folks will tell you. you are away from your family. you are under incredible scrutiny. people are criticizing you all the time. you miss birthday parties and you miss soccer games and you are on the road. you get chicken dinners and the chicken is not always great. [laughter] you are not getting enough sleep. you are having to raise money. so the only reason to do it is if you are getting something done. if you are helping somebody get health care are helping somebody get a job or you are making sure that our troops when they come home are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve and get the benefits they have earned or if you are trying to clean up the environment. [applause] .. start figuring out through social media how you can help a broader organization to advance the cause. if you take that approach then even if you don't get to that office you have done a world of good. and if you do get to that office it will be turned. and and you will have a sense of what is important to you and what your moral compasses. he will be that much better as a congressman or a mayor or councilman or what have you. this is pretty good advice generally. when i meet -- [applause] if you look at the most successful business people there people just love the thing that they are doing. steve jobs loves computers. he loves design. he is working. and it turns out you get so absorbed in it to you end up being pretty good at it. and then i was -- young people don't wait until you get there to do something. you can do something right now. [applause] all right. go ahead. hold on. let's get a mic. >> i'm and lucy, a student at harkin, wondering you said the republicans have never really changed their opinion of what to do. why do you think they are always proposing tax cuts and never changing what they think we should do? [laughter] >> it's a good question. look and i want to be fair to the philosophy. i think they have a particular philosophy, at least today. every party changes over time. so the person who i consider the greatest president of all time abraham lincoln, also the 1st republican president. there have been democrats whose main goal was to block civil rights. the less government interferes with the marketplace the better off we all are. some believe that because philosophically they think government is a source of coercion and interference and telling you what to do and they believe that everybody come as long as they are not hurting anybody , should be free to do exactly as they want. some of it has to do with an economic theory. you know hurting economic growth. some believe that if i am i'm out there making a lot of money, it's my money and i should not have to pay taxes to pay for somebody else's school or else to school or roadway what have you. there are a bunch of reasons why they have the philosophy that they have. i think the problem right now is that we live in such a complicated big global society that what might be a sensible theory on paper does not always make sense and real-life. you may generally think, as i i do that the market is the greatest source of productivity and job creation and wealth creation in history but history tells us that there is a company a company out there making a lot of money and pouring a lot of pollution into the water and it catches on fire and suddenly people can't, you know fish there anymore and people are getting sick it makes sense for us to have some regulations that say you can make your product make a profit. that is great. you are kind of messing things up. we are going to say you can't just dump your pollution in the water. in theory you might say we don't want government forcing itself and the interactions of people. if history shows that racial minorities or a gay person is discriminated we make a value judgment that says this is an exception. you can kind of do what you want. when it comes to a hotel you can decide you are not going to serve someone of a particular racial or ethnic group. we don't want you to discriminate. that is a principle that constrains your freedom because we think that that is a value we care about. so that -- my philosophy is you can have principles, but you principles, but you have to apply them and how they work in the real world and of a fair and just and generous and do they work. you have to base some ideas on fact and history. i think sometimes that is not what happens in washington. you know know, you probably no someone like that in school. it does not matter what happens. they keep doing the same thing over and over again even though it does not work. einstein that madness. two more questions. all right. young people have had good questions. not as young. still pretty young. >> mr. president you speak about the dysfunction in washington because people are trying to get reelected every so often. what about citizens united and overturning that and getting some limits on campaign spending so that we bring some reality back? >> there is no doubt that among advanced march have advanced democracies we are unique in the length of our campaign almost unlimited amounts of money that are now spent. i think it is bad for our democracy. and i speak as somebody who has raised a lot of money. [applause] i am good at it. i am proud of the fact that part of the reason i was good at it is because we were the 1st out of the gate not the 1st but we refined using the internet for small donations and to be able to pull a lot of ordinary folks resources to amplify our message. but. but i also got checks from wealthy people, too. so it is not that i am not good at it. i just don't think it is a good way for our democracy to work. it makes life miserable on members of congress particularly those in competitive districts. no doubt it has an impact on how legislation moves forward or does not move forward in congress. it is not straightforward i'm writing the check in here is my position. but there is but there is a reason why special interests and lobbyists have undue influence in washington. and the degree to which it is spent and the nature of just the blitzkrieg every election season, you have to turn off the tv. it's depressing. and it is all negative. the science has shown that people are more prone to believe the negative than the positive. it just degrades our democracy generally. citizens united was a supreme court ruling based on the first amendment. it can't be overturned by statute. it could be overturned by a new court or by constitutional amendment. those are extraordinarily challenging processes. so i think we have to think about other creative ways to reduce the influence of money given that in the short term we're not going to be able to overturn citizens united. and i think the other ways for us to think creatively and we have to have a better debate about how we encourage participation. for example the process is damaging to congress. i don't think the insiders should draw the line to decide who the voters are. [applause] democrats and republicans do this. it is great for incumbents. it means overtime that people are not competing because they know if they when went and democratic primary or republican primary they have one. it pushes parties away from compromise in the center. i think that -- i don't think i have ever said this publicly, but i we will now. we should not be making it harder. we should be making it easier to vote. [applause] i have said that publicly before. my justice department will be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights. the speech down in selma at some at the 50th anniversary there was incredibly moving for me and my daughter's and the notion that in this day and age we would be deliberately trying to restrict makes no sense. at the state and local level you can push back against that. in australia and other countries, it is mandatory. it would be transformative if everyone voted. that would contract money more than anything. if everybody voted than it would completely change the political map of this country because the people who tend not to vote our young lower income skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minority groups. and they are often the folks who are scratching and climbing to get into the middle class and working hard. there is a reason why some folks try to keep them away. so that may end up being a better strategy in the short-term. long-term i think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process. [applause] about how our financial system works. realistically given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition. last question. it is a young ladies turn. guys but your hands down. all right. go ahead. >> hello, mr. president. i am in 7th grade. my question is, if you could go back to the 1st day of your 1st term in the 1st day of your 2nd term what advice would you give yourself? [laughter] >> that is a good question. you know, i would have told myself to anticipate that because the recession was so bad and so tough for so many people that i was going to have to be more aggressive in explaining to the public how long it was going to take for the recovery to take place. although this is a challenge we had when it 1st came up when fdr came during the great depression that have been so bad for two or three years that everyone understood we had bottomed out. there was huge support because there had already been a track record of failure by the previous administration. when we came in things were crashing, crashing, but it had not yet shown up in the statistics and would take another eight or nine months before even we even a year before things bottomed out. and so i think we could have done a better job on that front than we did. i would have closed guantánamo on the 1st day. [applause] i didn't because at that time we had a a bipartisan agreement that it should be closed. my republican opponent had also said it should be closed. i thought we had enough consensus that we could do it in a more deliberate fashion. the the politics tough and people get scared by the rhetoric around. once that said and the path of least resistance was to leave it open even though it is not who we are as a country. so we had to chip away at it year after year after year. in that 1st couple of weeks we could have done it quickly. i am thinking maybe i i should have told myself to start dying my hair now. before people noticed. by a year and it was too late. i'm just getting. michelle thinks i'll extinguished. let me just say it has been wonderful to be with you. i we will leave you with this thought. as discouraging as the news is and certainly as discouraging as the news out of washington is sometimes it really is important for us to understand how well-positioned we are for the future. we we get white house and turns in every six months wonderful young people, inspiring because they are smart and clever and hard-working and idealistic. i tell them there was a time in history where you would want to be born and most likely to be healthy have enough to eat not be subject of violence not be not be subject to discrimination, not be subject to sexual assault not to be abused by your government the time would actually be now. hard to imagine with all the terrible things happening around the world but we have made enormous strides enormous progress. when i was at the bridge and you think about where we were 50 years ago and where we are now come as challenging and troubling is what happened in ferguson cleveland and new york around some of those issues, as much progress as we have nevertheless made when you think about our economy and the fact that we have the best universities and workers, still have the best scientific establishment the most innovative companies we have all the cards. we really do. life is tough. america has problems. they are rarely solved overnight, and overnight and progress is never been a straight line. it has always england zagged. but our trajectory is t- but our trajectory is toward greater fairness and more inclusiveness and more tolerance and more prosperity. i want people to feel encouraged by the. the more proud i am of all the incredible things the american people do every single day. our biggest enemy is this corrosive cynicism. there is nothing this country cannot do nothing cleveland cannot do and that is because of you. thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ >> coming up on c-span2 a senate commerce committee hearing examining the fcc internet rules and policies. federal reserve chair janet yellen on monetary policy. later senate debate on the human trafficking bill. >> on the next washington journal a look at us military efforts in iraq and syria and the president's request for military force against isis. we sit down with rick larson. then chris stewart of the intelligence committee we will discuss the obama administration's nuclear negotiations with iran. those conversations those conversations bus your calls, tweets, and e-mails live at 7:00 a.m. >> nuclear negotiations with iran will be the focus of the house foreign affairs committee hearing. deputy secretary of state we will testify before the community at the march 31 deadline for an agreement. that is live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> now isis rears there ugly head. we should not be surprised by that. you can't undo you can't undo decades of soviet era and saddam era stuff with eight years especially when you talk. afghanistan" into the president's announcements we currently have about 10,000 troops. we will draw down to 5000 next year. i i would warn that we will probably see a similar result. an army will be shaky. >> this sunday retired army lieutenant general on the failed us strategies and what we should have done differently sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> tuesday tom wheeler answered questions about classifying the services of common carriers like telephone services. the new rules prohibit and internet companies from discriminating against content. wednesday are five commissioners were on capitol hill for an oversight hearing before the senate commerce, science, and transportation committee this is three hours and 35 minutes. >> good afternoon. this hearing will come to order. generate a bit of a crowd. let me start with my remarks. i will yield to my distinguished ranking member we will ask the fcc commissioners to confine their remarks to about three minutes. so welcome today's oversight hearing. everyday every single american relies on some part of our nation's vast communication system. an efficient, effective communication system is the bedrock of our economy in the tie that binds together 21st century economy. we sit in the middle of the digital world more true following the recent decision to turn our nation's broadband infrastructure into a public utility. the fcc is threatening and unpredictable agency has a struggles to operate under legal authority. to be clear today's hearing is not a response to the title to order. clearly no discussion can ignore one of the most significant and controversial decisions. my views are well known. they should be clear rules for the digital world with clear authority for the sec to enforce the. i put forward a draft bill to begin the legislative discussion about how best to put such rules and the statute. like most 1st drafts our bill is not perfect. i invite members of this committee and stakeholders to offer ideas on how we can improve so the final draft can win bipartisan support and provide everyone with the certainty that they need the recent action accomplished the exact opposite. rather than exercising regulatory humility the three commissioners chose to take the most radical, polarizing, and partisan path possible. instead of working with me and my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to find consensus the three of you chosen option that i believe will only increase political, regulatory, and legal uncertainty which will ultimately hurt average