[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS: GOVERNANCE, MONETARY POLICY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 114-99 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25-878 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 ____________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800 Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Pennsylvania DAVID SCOTT, Georgia LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ROBERT HURT, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BILL FOSTER, Illinois RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida PATRICK MURPHY, Florida ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ANN WAGNER, Missouri KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona ANDY BARR, Kentucky JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DENNY HECK, Washington LUKE MESSER, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine MIA LOVE, Utah FRENCH HILL, Arkansas TOM EMMER, Minnesota Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Chairman MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina, Vice GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, Ranking Chairman Member FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BILL FOSTER, Illinois STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama LUKE MESSER, Indiana PATRICK MURPHY, Florida DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire DENNY HECK, Washington MIA LOVE, Utah TOM EMMER, Minnesota C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: September 7, 2016............................................ 1 Appendix: September 7, 2016............................................ 41 WITNESSES Wednesday, September 7, 2016 George, Esther L., President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.................................... 6 Jones, Robert G., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Old National Bancorp............................................... 8 Lacker, Jeffrey M., President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond............................... 4 Spriggs, Hon. William E., Chief Economist, AFL-CIO, and Professor, Department of Economics, Howard University.......... 9 APPENDIX Prepared statements: George, Esther L............................................. 42 Jones, Robert G.............................................. 75 Lacker, Jeffrey M............................................ 78 Spriggs, Hon. William E...................................... 106 FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICTS: GOVERNANCE, MONETARY POLICY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ---------- Wednesday, September 7, 2016 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Huizenga [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Huizenga, Mulvaney, Lucas, Pearce, Stutzman, Pittenger, Messer, Schweikert, Guinta, Love, Emmer; Moore, Foster, Perlmutter, Himes, Sewell, Murphy, Kildee, and Heck. Ex officio present: Representatives Hensarling and Waters. Chairman Huizenga. The Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Federal Reserve Districts: Governance, Monetary Policy, and Economic Performance.'' I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. Economic performance couldn't be stronger, especially in light of the deep hole that President Obama inherited. Well, that is the story that you are going to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and they have been telling it for years, but the facts clearly contradict this situation. The fact of the matter is that we are mired in the slowest recovery since at least World War II. Historically, our Nation's economy has grown at a 3 percent clip. The Obama Administration now pretends that a new normal of 2 percent counts as a success. Small on its face, the difference between 3 and 2 percent is 50 percent. Unfortunately, economic opportunities are now disappearing even faster. And while my friends on the other side have been crowing about this recovery for years, Republicans have been calling out for what it really is: completely unacceptable situation. But today it will be different in at least one important respect. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will finally join us in acknowledging that our economy is underperforming. And together we will examine the important role that the Federal Reserve's districts play in expanding economic opportunity--a role that is, unfortunately, under heavy attack. This attack has been brewing beneath the surface for several years. In late July, the Democrat Party finally made their true objective clear. The party platform adopted at the convention in Philadelphia promises to increase opportunity for all. Instead, it has taken aim at the very foundation of opportunity, in my opinion--that is the governance of monetary policy and the subject of today's hearing. Democrats have constantly resisted reforms that would modernize the Federal Reserve, bringing much-needed transparency to what most Americans consider an impossibly opaque institution. While such reforms promise increased accountability, Democrats falsely claim that a better disciplined, more predictable, and clearly communicated monetary policy with Congress and the public would somehow jeopardize the Fed's independence. Reforms such as these included in the FORM Act and the Draft Financial Choice Act would help insulate the Fed from any opportunity-killing political pressures. However, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like to double down on what Dodd-Frank started, co-opting the Federal Reserve district banks by subjecting them to the same politics that has kicked economic opportunity to the sidelines in the name of re- inflating asset prices. Their platform promises to press the pedal to the metal in a drag race to printing money for the politics of those in office. They now have launched a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve itself. And I will note that this is a dual-edged sword that some might benefit now and will rue the day if this were to go through later. Real economic opportunity cannot return until Washington puts an end to the pretense of knowledge. We cannot promote economic opportunity for all through a monetary policy that targets assets that benefit only some. Oracles from the Eccles Building have been promising to do so for a decade, but where are the results? I am as fed up as anybody. We are fed up as anybody. Where is the promised opportunity? How could the Fed have created trillions upon trillions of dollars from thin air in the name of buying questionable assets that they have left us with with not only the slowest economic recovery in our lifetimes, but increased inequality to boot? I know that a better way is available, one that reverses the increased centralization of monetary policy in Washington's politicized Board of Governors and restores the historic role of district banks as a critical source of local economic information and an institutional source of support for sound monetary policy. I believe my House-passed FORM Act and the Financial Services Committee CHOICE Act offer a much better way. Instead of doubling down on Dodd-Frank, these legislative solutions bring monetary policy out of the political shadows and into the sunlight of market accountability, and strengthen monetary policy independence by restoring the voice of the district bank presidents on monetary policy matters while subjecting regulatory and supervisory services to congressional appropriations and oversight, where they properly belong. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Ms. Moore. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to my colleagues and to this distinguished panel. I so look forward to the tremendous assets that we have here in front of us, Mr. Chairman. And I especially welcome the Honorable Spriggs, who is a very well-educated gentleman from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I think that your perspectives are going to be extremely valuable and we thank you for giving us the time here. The Federal Reserve, as the central bank of the United States, plays an extremely important role in our financial markets and economy, and I think we have seen this post our recession. It is also very misunderstood. So I actually think that it may be helpful to have had this hearing to discuss the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve System. I will have to admit to you, Mr. Chairman, that I was initially extremely suspicious of this hearing, due to some proposals that I think would disastrously inject partisan politics into monetary policy. And we have heard some of them. So I think it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, you talked about not wanting to inject politics into the Federal Reserve, since we have heard these cries to audit the Feds, and balancing the transportation budget with Federal Reserve monies, and just your statement today wanting to bring the Federal Reserve into more of congressional compliance. But short of undermining the independence of the Fed with policy audits or appropriating the budget, I have been open, Mr. Chairman, to you and others about improving the diversity of thought at the Fed. The Fed was created and established to be independent, and I think that independence has fueled a lot of these misconceptions and misgivings about the Fed. And I think that we ought to and should explore smart reforms that balance maintaining the Fed's independence but that also bolsters public confidence and faith in the Fed. We have made some tweaks in Dodd-Frank, including having the GAO study--conduct a study and make recommendations on reform. And I think that that is appropriate. And I think the GAO recommendations are a good place to start any conversation on reform. And I also signed onto a letter with some of my Democratic colleagues encouraging the Fed to seek greater diversity. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and I look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Huizenga. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you for that. Today, we welcome the testimony of Esther George, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. And I know you are coming off of a busy August, with the Jackson Hole conclave that was put together. And I know that you met with a number of folks who are represented here today in the audience. Jeffrey Lacker, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Robert Jones, chairman and chief executive officer of Old National Bancorp, and former Board director for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Mr. William Spriggs, chief economist for the AFL-CIO, and professor, Department of Economics at Howard University. Chairman Huizenga. Yes, Dr. Spriggs. Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection, each of your written statements will be made a part of the record. Dr. Lacker, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. LACKER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND Mr. Lacker. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Moore, and Chairman Hensarling. I am honored to speak to the subcommittee about the governance structure of the Fed's regional reserve banks. To understand the Fed's structure it is essential to understand the Fed's purpose. Prior to the founding of the Fed, the banking system was often unable to adjust the supply of monetary assets flexibly enough in response to the changing needs of commerce. The Fed was founded to furnish an elastic currency, in the words of the preamble to the Federal Reserve Act. Clearinghouses, bank-owned cooperatives in larger cities, played an important role in how periodic crises were resolved before the Fed, including the issuance of currency substitutes. But clearinghouses were widely viewed as favoring the interests of large money-center banks. Reserve banks were modeled after clearinghouses, but with note-issue powers and universal eligibility for membership, the aim being to improve upon the role of clearinghouses in a way that served broader public interests. A plan for a centralized institution was rejected out of concern about excessive Wall Street influence at the expense of diverse regional interests. Proposals for a government- controlled central bank were rejected as well, for fear the Federal Government would use control of the money supply to resort to inflationary deficit finance. At the same time, a measure of public oversight was viewed as essential, consistent with Progressive Era thinking. And so the act included a Federal Reserve Board whose leaders were politically appointed. Thus, the final Federal Reserve Act reflected a balance of competing considerations: a federated set of institutions to provide for representation of a diverse range of geographic and commercial interests with a hybrid public-private governance structure to provide for public oversight but contain potential misuse of monetary authority. The governance structure of the Federal Reserve is still effective, in my view, because the considerations the founders wrestled with are all relevant today. The federated structure has benefited policymaking by ensuring that a diversity of perspectives on policy and economic conditions are brought to the table. Reserve banks historically have shown intellectual leadership on topics that initially went against the grain of mainstream thinking but later became broadly accepted. And Reserve bank presidents have a record of challenging conventional views. In addition, the federated structure has promoted broad regional engagement of the institution across the country, deepening the Fed's understanding of the diverse economic challenges facing American communities. To be sure, our country's understanding of diversity has expanded since 1913. And it is in keeping with the spirit of our founding that the Federal Reserve has taken the importance of diversity seriously as we have sought to ensure broad representation of views in the formulation of monetary policy, including those associated with disadvantaged communities. I believe our record in this regard, like that of many other organizations in the United States, shows a combination of substantial progress and areas where more can be done. In addition to bringing diverse viewpoints to bear, the Fed's public-private governance helps our policymaking focus on longer-term objectives. At times there is a temptation to provide excessive economic stimulus in the short run, and leave the subsequent inflationary costs for future policymakers to deal with. Evidence from around the world, along with our own history in the United States, amply demonstrates that the temptation of shortsighted monetary policies is a bipartisan vulnerability, just as the Fed's founders feared. For central banks, this implies that meeting-to-meeting monetary policy decisions need to be insulated from short-term political pressures driven by electoral considerations. But independence with regard to the choice of monetary policy interest rate settings must be paired with strong accountability for the economic results of policymaking over time. And accountability rests on transparent communications, which help Congress and the public evaluate the Fed's performance against its mandate. The Fed's public-private structure supports monetary policy independence by ensuring a measure of apolitical leadership. The reserve banks' autonomous balance sheets, protected appropriation status, and independent capital stocks all play a role as well by limiting high-frequency interference that might diminish instrument independence. The presence of bankers on reserve bank Boards is said to represent a conflict of interest since reserve bank staff supervise banks. But strict rules limit bankers' roles; they simply have no avenue through which they can influence supervisory matters. Moreover, best practice for any Board is to seek members with expertise relevant to the organization's activities. The Fed's large payment processing operations, for example, make the original rationale for having bankers serve on reserve bank Boards still valid, in my view. And in addition, bankers are particularly well-positioned to report on economic conditions in their footprints. In conclusion, while some claim that the Federal Reserve's governance structure is a historical anachronism, the continued relevance of the trade-offs taken into account by the authors of the Federal Reserve Act argues for the continued utility of this finely balanced arrangement that they crafted. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Lacker can be found on page 78 of the appendix.] Chairman Huizenga. Thank you, Dr. Lacker. Ms. George, you are recognized for 5 minutes as well. STATEMENT OF ESTHER L. GEORGE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY Ms. George. Chairmen Hensarling and Huizenga, Ranking Member Moore, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to share my views on the role of regional Federal reserve banks as part of the Federal Reserve System. Because the Federal Reserve is an institution that makes decisions of consequence to the broad public, a discussion of these matters is worthwhile. If changes are to be considered, the public should understand not only the congressional intent for its current design, but also the strong safeguards that assure its accountability. Central banks are unique institutions. They have important responsibilities for a Nation's financial system and economy. Congress, as it contemplated a central bank for the United States more than 100 years ago, took note of central bank models for the United States from other countries while keeping in mind two earlier attempts at central banking in the United States. Ultimately, it opted for a different approach--one that recognized the public's distrust of concentrated power and greater confidence in decentralized institutions. The Federal Reserve's unique public-private structure reflects these strongly held views and is designed to provide a system of checks and balances. Challenges to this public-private design have surfaced throughout the Federal Reserve's history, not unlike they have today. But in the end, our country has remained most confident in this decentralized governance structure. Criticism of the quasi-private nature of the regional reserve banks was anticipated from the start. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Act leaves no unchecked power in reserve banks. The politically appointed members of the Board of Governors have oversight authority of the most important governance aspects of reserve banks. For example, they appoint the Chair and deputy Chair of a reserve bank's Board, they vote to approve the selection of the bank's president as well as its chief operating officer, and they approve the reserve bank's budget and salaries. The Board of Governors also meets with each bank's Chair and deputy Chair annually to review the bank's performance and that of its president. Finally, the reserve bank's operations are reviewed by the Board of Governors as well as an outside independent auditor. Notwithstanding this strong public oversight, some question the role of commercial banks within the Fed's structure. Here, too, important safeguards exist. The supervision and regulation of the Federal Reserve's member banks is a statutory responsibility of the congressionally confirmed Board of Governors. Bankers who serve on reserve bank Boards are prohibited by law from participating in the selection of the bank president, and no director can participate in bank supervisory matters. Finally, all directors are required to adhere to high ethical standards of conduct and avoid actions that might impair the effectiveness of the Federal Reserve's operations or in any way discredit the reputation of the system. The capital stock supplied by these member banks serves as the foundation for the decentralized structure, allowing for separate corporate entities. Through the regional reserve banks, private citizens from diverse backgrounds and from the largest to the smallest communities have input into national economic policy. Strong and varied independent perspectives more easily emerge to engage in difficult monetary policy discussions, and the central bank is provided insulation from short-term political pressures. Altering this public-private structure in favor of a fully public construct diminishes these defining characteristics, in my view. It also risks putting more distance between Main Street and the Nation's central bank. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker understood this well. He experienced firsthand how public pressure can be exerted on a central bank when it must make unpopular decisions that he and the FOMC judged to be in the long-run best interests of the economy. In a 1984 speech he noted the important role of the structure of the Federal Reserve System in supporting the central bank's decision-making. And he said, ``It was all quite deliberately done by men of political imagination, designed to assure a certain independence of judgment, a continuity in professionalism in staff, a close contact with economic developments and opinion throughout our great land, and a large degree of insulation from partisan or passing political concerns.'' To that end, I extend a personal invitation for any of you to visit the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City to see what a regional Federal Reserve bank provides in support of the central bank's objectives for economic stability. Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. George can be found on page 42 of the appendix.] Chairman Huizenga. Thank you, Ms. George. Mr. Jones, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. JONES, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OLD NATIONAL BANCORP Mr. Jones. Great. Thank you. Chairman Huizenga and Ranking Member Moore, good morning. It is my honor to speak with the distinguished members of this committee today about the role of community bankers on our reserve bank Boards. In my belief, it is critically important that bankers continue to serve in this capacity. I sit before you as the chairman and CEO of Old National Bancorp, a 182-year-old community bank headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, serving Indiana, southwest Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. I am also a proud former Board director of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis as well as a former member of the Federal Advisory Committee of the Federal Reserve Board. I would like to begin my remarks by touching on a partnership that has changed the lives for the better. At its center are two individuals: Roslyn Jackson, a former substance abuse counselor in western Kentucky penal system; and Ben Joergens, Old National Bancorp's financial empowerment officer. With insights and guidance from Roslyn, Ben designed a financial education program that provides nonviolent offenders in our region with the tools to gain financial independence once they have completed their debt to society. Launched in 2014, this program led the American Bankers Association to recognize Ben with its George Bailey Distinguished Service Award. More importantly, it has led the nearly 2,000 individuals out of a cycle of despair and dependence that was fueled by their inability to manage their finances. One graduate of the program summed it up this way: ``I learned that you can always cleanup the wreckage of your past and take control of your destiny.'' This is just one illustration of the many ways that banks big and small work to strengthen the communities that we serve. Old National is a fairly typical community bank. With $14.4 billion in assets, we are literally headquartered on Main Street in Evansville, Indiana. Our clients are small and mid- size business owners, farmers, young families, retirees, labor and community leaders. Each year we invest millions in support of community causes, and our nearly 3,000 associates are known for their volunteerism, having donated more than 100,000 volunteer hours in 2015. In 2016 our company was named to the Ethisphere Institute's World's Most Ethical Companies list for this fifth consecutive year. And recently the American Bankers Association named us as one the best banks to work for in the country. The strong connection that banks like ours enjoys with their communities we serve gives us a unique and valuable perspective. Not only do bankers serve as community catalysts, we are on the front lines every day assisting our clients, who represent a broad cross-section of industries and neighborhoods. Over time we gain vital instincts to how they view the economy and how those views shape their decision-making. Conversely, the bankers who sit on the Nation's reserve Boards gain incredibly valuable information that they can take back to their communities. I experienced this reciprocal relationship firsthand during my tenure. Fueled by the knowledge I gained from my Board experience, Old National spearheaded the creation of the first Bank On program in the Midwest back in 2009. In the nearly 8 years since we adopted this program we have added another 16 programs in our footprint, helping the unbanked and underbanked individuals take greater control of their finances. Again, all this dates back to the knowledge I gained serving under Federal Reserve. In my time as a director, I and other bankers on our Board not only brought valuable insights from our communities into our discussions, we frequently reached out to a diverse set of community leaders to gather specific feedback that help drive policy decisions. Over time these trusted voices from Main Street began seeking us out to offer their views on issues of the day. These candid regional perspectives were invaluable to our discussions on the drivers of our local economies. That is why I feel so strongly that bankers are a vital asset. I recognize the concerns that have surfaced over whether bank directors might somehow attempt to control or manipulate decisions for the betterment of their own institutions. While no system is perfect, I do believe this issue is effectively addressed through the current policies and procedures of the Federal Reserve System. As this committee knows, the banking industry is highly regulated and bankers fully understand the consequences if we violate these regulations. These same consequences apply to the regulations and policies that govern the Federal Reserve System. The existing governance model is strong and I applaud the controls currently in place. I can assure you that during my tenure I never felt that my integrity or ethical center were in any way challenged or compromised. As banker, our role in the Federal Reserve Board is limited, yet crucial. We serve as managers, budgeters, auditors, and strategic planners. And we supply a vibrant and important regional voice on issues that affect small and medium-sized towns all across our great Nation. I encourage this committee to retain this vital link to the views, perceptions, and attitudes of mainstream America. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones can be found on page 75 of the appendix.] Chairman Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Jones. With that, the Honorable William Spriggs is recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM E. SPRIGGS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AFL-CIO, AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, HOWARD UNIVERSITY Mr. Spriggs. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Huizenga and Ranking Member Gwen Moore, for this invitation to speak today. I want to start with a clear statement that I don't disagree with the current set of policies that the Fed is pursuing. In fact, we are in uncharted waters when it comes to this recovery because, unlike in the past, the Fed has not had the help of fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. On all previous occasions when we have had downturns Congress has held up its half of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act--to fully address full employment. When we look at the deficit spending under President Reagan and the deficits that were run up under President George W. Bush we see the Congress clearly understood the need to act and to respond to the downturn. So this is unprecedented for the Fed to have to act on its own, and I would think, as was the case with Chairman Volcker, it has led to a lot of public criticism that is very hard for the Fed. And but for its independence, Chair Yellen could not be steering us in these uncharted waters. I also want to say that it is fully possible--possible-- under the current standards to have regional bank presidents who are quite open to public participation and truly do think that they have to represent and listen to all the voices from their region. You have President George here on the panel, who has let the doors of her bank open, has left the doors of her bank to engage her community and to talk to all the citizens in her region and hear from those who are affected by Fed policy, and to respect their voices. So it is possible. I want to give my statements with regard to your theme, which is policy outcomes, and to look back because, of course, we cannot ignore the Great Recession and what led up to it. So that is going to be the tone of what I would like to speak about. You see the chart that is up now? This shows the record of inflation pre-1978. You already heard about Chairman Volcker and his war on inflation; and then post-1984, what economists call the Great Moderation. And when you see the chart you can clearly see that inflation averaged a much higher level before 1984; since 1984 inflation has run at a significantly lower amount. But more importantly, the variance in inflation has greatly reduced. So there is great stability that has occurred in terms of price stability. You can see the green line shows current average inflation post-1984. The red line shows inflation in the period before. The next slide, however, shows you the performance of the labor market. And here you see a clear difference. Before 1978 the average monthly unemployment rate in the United States was 5.1 percent. During the Great Moderation it has been 6.1 percent. That 1 percentage point difference means a lot. In the Great Moderation only 25 percent of the time have American workers been below 5.1 percent. This lack of voice on the part of workers affects the way that the Fed looks at things. And it is not guaranteed into the system. Class B members often do have influence. The current president of the Philadelphia bank was a class B member, chaired the search committee, stepped down from the search committee and then became president of the bank. There are at least 12 instances in which class B members chosen by the banks have ended up being class C members--those who then govern the regional banks. The voices of others needs to be put into the mix so that we can have, guaranteed, the voice of everyone. When the banks were established in 1914 we had a much different banking system. Today the level of concentration in our banking system is at record high levels and that means that we can't think that the regional banks really represent regional views. We need to have a way to assure that that will be the case. [The prepared statement of Mr. Spriggs can be found on page 106 of the appendix.] Chairman Huizenga. Thank you. I appreciate that testimony. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. And I would like to point out next week marks the eighth anniversary of Lehman Brothers' collapse. Prominent scholars who studied the financial crisis point to a monetary policy that was too loose for too long as a significant contributor. Scholars have also shown that the unique institutional structure of district banks can guard against such policy mistakes. That is, district presidents tend to be more concerned about overly accommodative policy than are their politically appointed colleagues on the Board of Governors, while this tendency has been criticized by advocates for extending what is already the greatest monetary accommodation in American history, under the theory that doing so will increase wages and employment at lower income levels. Research also suggests that we need to do just the opposite. For example, Dr. Christina Romer, a Berkeley economics professor and the first person to Chair President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, observed that, ``Compassionate monetary policy is sound monetary policy.'' Monetary policy that aims at low inflation and stable aggregate demand is the most likely to ``permanently improve conditions for the poor.'' President George, do you agree with President Obama's first CEA Chair that sound monetary policy is most likely to permanently improve conditions for the poor? And I am going to asking everybody for just a yes or no. Ms. George. Yes. Chairman Huizenga. Yes. How about you, Mr. Spriggs--Honorable Spriggs? Do you agree? Mr. Spriggs. I think that sound monetary policy includes making sure that the wages of workers rise with productivity, that we are at full employment so that the Nation can have the highest level productivity possible. Chairman Huizenga. Is that a yes or a no? Mr. Spriggs. That is my definition of sound monetary policy. Chairman Huizenga. Okay. How about you Dr. Lacker? Mr. Lacker. I agree with Christina Romer's sentence. Chairman Huizenga. Okay. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. I agree, yes. Chairman Huizenga. Okay. I do too, and it seems to me that we share a common interest, which is the widening wage gap--the underrepresentation that has occurred for those in low and moderate income who have not seen their wages in increase. We all know, and if you have watched my subcommittee at all or watched me in committee I have said this many many many many times, Wall Street is doing just fine. I am concerned about Main Street and what is going on. And you literally, Mr. Jones, are at the corner of Main Street in Evanston, Indiana. This is something that we have to tackle. And I think that there really is something that the right and the left share, which is a suspicious view of the Federal Reserve and want to make sure that there is a proper check on the Federal Reserve. I believe these district bank presidents do that. I also want to do a quick--quickly ask, do you agree that the Federal Reserve district presidents bring important regional and local knowledge to the FOMC deliberations? And, Dr. Lacker and Ms. George, if you don't mind touching on that briefly? You are at the table. Mr. Lacker. Yes I do. It is an intense focus of every regional reserve bank to understand economic conditions in their district in way that complements the national economic statistics and is more granular and more thoughtful than the statistics that the national level can reveal, so yes. Chairman Huizenga. Ms. George? Ms. George. And the transcripts show that a significant portion of the discussion about the economy does come from talking about regional aspects of the national economy. Chairman Huizenga. Actually, I have had my own little experience in that. My family is involved in construction in Michigan. I own a small third-generation sand and gravel operation. Family has been involved in construction for decades. And that when I went to visit the president of the Chicago Reserve Bank the first 15 minutes of that was an interview of me--what was happening in the local economy in West Michigan. Given those changes in populations and demographics, does the current rotation of who votes in each FOMC meeting fully leverage the benefits of that regional and local perspectives that can bring to monetary policy? Again, Ms. George, why don't we start with you? Ms. George. Certainly, So the importance of those regional connections come through access that we have in those district lines through our branch offices, through our Boards of directors on those branch offices. And so I think the country has been covered in terms of--despite demographic changes that span--that each regional reserve bank takes seriously, which is to make sure they understand, within the confines of their district, how that economy is performing. Chairman Huizenga. Dr. Lacker, I will let you have the-- Mr. Lacker. Yes, I think you asked about voting rotation, as well. So all the participants in a meeting, whether they voter or not, have a voice and do bring their characterization of regional economic conditions to the discussion, and it is part of the discussion. Where voting comes into play is just where is the center of gravity of the committee and where does the Chair finds it useful to find a consensus? The current rotation was crafted decades ago and altering it would alter the--sort of the balance of forces within the committee. And I will leave it at that. Chairman Huizenga. My time has expired, but I will just end quickly and I will have a light gavel with my ranking member, as well. That is one of the reasons why I felt it important to include in the FORM Act provisions that would bring a more balanced set of district-level views into the FOMC voting process. And we have had such a weighted view towards New York and that permanent seat, I wanted to make sure all those voices are being heard. So with that, my time has expired. And I recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. Ms. Moore. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman. And I do want to thank you all for your testimony. I think I heard correctly from all of you that you think that the independence of the Fed is really critical toward your being able to do your jobs. Did I hear correctly from all of you? Ms. George. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. So you all agree on that. That being said, I guess I am concerned about--I guess I want to hear from each of you of what you think of the importance of having a more diverse representation on the Federal Reserve Board. Do you think or do you not think that that would interfere with independence or would that enhance the decision-making process? I was on a letter with about 100 lawmakers, which asked the Federal Reserve to look at greater diversities, so I guess I would like to hear from each of you just very briefly about whether or not you think that efforts to diversify the Board would interfere with independence. Mr. Lacker. So we take diversity very seriously. I know that that is a commonplace cliche almost. But diversity, as I noted in my statement, is built into the structure of the system. And the idea bringing diversities to the table, the value of diverse perspectives in strengthening a decision-making process, is something that predates the concerns of this decade or the previous decade in diversity of access to economic resources and opportunities. We have been focusing on at the Board--our Board of directors level diversity for several decades now. And I know that we and others have had minority representation, women representation on their Boards going back several decades. It is something that is a regular part of the discussion and regularly reported on within the system. Ms. Moore. Thank you, Dr. Lacker. I want to give others a chance to answer this question, as well. Mr. Spriggs. I would say that a problem with having it owned by banks is, regrettably, the Board of directors looked like banks. So they look like the executives of banks: 83 percent of the directors are white; 75 percent are men. These are people who look like bank directors. They are trained and they talk like bank directors. So it is not necessarily a capture in the usual sense of regulatory capture, but clearly in a cultural capture. Ms. Moore. Gotcha. Mr. Spriggs. In the transcripts that you see going up to the crisis, even regional bank presidents who were in regions where the epicenter of the subprime crisis hit hardest had no comments about what was going on in terms of the effect of the subprime crisis on the African-American and Latino community-- Ms. Moore. With that-- Mr. Spriggs. --or an understanding of it-- Ms. Moore. Dr. Spriggs, my time is limited so let me take you here: There is often a lot of resistance to the bank doing their dual mandate to look at unemployment. And unemployment in the African-American community--African-Americans are not experiencing the recovery as other communities are. So what do you think about reforms that might--or activities of the bank--that focus on reducing unemployment, especially among African-Americans? Is that something that would interfere with the other mandate to control inflation? Mr. Spriggs. The mandate of the bank actually comes from the Humphrey-Hawkins Act and the clear mandate is full employment. Full employment benefits everyone, and that means full employment for everyone. Actually, African-Americans employment-to-population ratio has been rising faster than for anyone else. It has gone up 10 percent. The problem is that often the Fed ignores the importance-- Ms. Moore. Exactly. Mr. Spriggs. --of that trend continuing and often thinks that it can stop recoveries before full employment is actually reached. When full employment comes we know that workers are better allocated, we get the efficiencies of the labor market at full employment, and discrimination falls. Currently, that is what is taking place. Currently, the gap in the unemployment experience of better-educated African-Americans to less- educated whites is closing, and that is because the labor market is beginning to heal. But it is not at full employment. Wages are not rise with productivity. We do not see quit rates to show that workers are being reallocated, and we do not see the level discrimination dropping. Ms. Moore. And do you think reformation of the Board and, moving from class D to C or some sort of programming would enable--would inform the Board about the importance of focusing on the full employment part of their mandate if we were to diversify the Fed more? Mr. Spriggs. Yes, because finally the worker's voice would be at the table and the worker's voice from communities that really are hurt the most would be at the table. In 2010, when the African-American unemployment rate was always above 15 percent, no one mentioned in the transcripts anything about the African-American unemployment rate at the FOMC. Ms. Moore. All right. Thank you for your indulgences, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Huizenga. The gentlelady yields back. With that, the Chair recognizes the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina, for 5 minutes. Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the chairman. I am going to try and talk about three apparently different things and see if I can weave them together, if you would give me a second to try and do that. I heard each of the three of you who have been presidents of the regional feds talk about the importance of knowing your district. I admire and respect that and believe that you are doing that. In fact, I have talked to Dr. Lacker about the district he lives in and he and I share, and I know that he is doing that. And then I weigh that against my personal experience. I can never forget being at a homebuilder's conference in California in 2006 or 2007, and the keynote speaker one night at dinner was some high-ranking member of the San Francisco Fed. It was not Janet Yellen at the time. And the subject of his speech that night was that it was the studied opinion of the San Francisco Fed, after having done intensive research, that on a national basis the homebuilding business would never go into recession again, that the restrictions on supply of new housing was such at the local level that we would never see a housing recession again in the country. So I weigh your efforts to try and know your district with just the human weaknesses of being wrong from time to time and occasionally being wrong on a monumental scale. Secondly, I would draw to each of the panelists' attention not only a recent article in the Economist magazine, but a scholarly piece of work that was referenced in there. I wish I could read the names. I think it is Professors Cieslak, Morse, and Vissing-Jorgensen--one from Duke and two from Cal-Berkeley. It goes into a very interesting analysis of what market returns have been in the weeks after the private FOMC meetings, that if you invested a dollar in the stock markets in the week after the meetings your return on that dollar over the--since 1994 would be about 12 times--1,200 percent--versus almost zero if you had weighed it in on every other week, the obvious application being, as the article mentions, that the--and I will read from the article very briefly--that the scholars speculate that there is a causal connection, selective disclosure, which they say is unfair. Those who attend the meetings have informal contact with the media, consultancies, and financial firms, and eventually the content of those meetings makes its way into the stock market. Again, I would commend the study to you folks and be curious to know your opinion about it at another time. It reminded me, by the way, that there is an investigation going on into the leak involving a company, Medley Global Advisors, from several years that is still ongoing, where we know information was leaked out of the FOMC meetings. Again two things not apparently similar, but I am trying to get there. Lastly, Dr. Lacker, you mentioned in your testimony something that we have talked about in this committee several times, which is--and I will read from it now--at times there is temptation to provide excessive economic stimulus in the short run and leave the subsequent inflationary cost for future policymakers to deal with. Evidence from around the world along with our own history amply demonstrates a temptation of shortsighted monetary policies is a bipartisan vulnerability, just as the Fed's founders feared. For central banks this implies that meeting-to-meeting monetary policy decisions need to be insulated from short-term political pressures driven by electoral consideration. And certainly my party is experiencing that now. We have a Fed chairman who was appointed by someone of another party, different political philosophy than we then we share. And my guess is my Democrat colleagues may in the future sometime share that same concern if a Republican nominee holds that chair. What do these three things have in common? It seems like the current system makes it very difficult--that our record of predicting the future at the Fed is fairly poor. It also seems that there is a risk of market distortions just from us doing things. The scholarly piece doesn't suggest that there is any nefarious activity; it is just a casual connections. Lastly, you have the risk of political pressure from either side on the Fed. Why? Because they are people and they are appointed by other people, and there are human tendencies here. So my question to all of you is this: Doesn't a rules-based approach to monetary policy lessen the possible distortions to each of those weaknesses? Doesn't it take away and make it less important if we make big mistakes in terms of our predictability? Doesn't it lessen the likelihood that information is selectively distributed to the market so that some people can benefit and others do not? And doesn't it lessen the likelihood of political pressure? Doesn't a rules-based system, whether you are conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, solve a lot of the problems that we face at the Fed? I will asked Dr. Lacker and then Mr. Spriggs. Mr. Lacker. Sure. We consult rules very regularly. I think having a sense of the pattern of past behavior of your own institution that gave rise to good outcomes is an important benchmark, and I gave a speech about this last Friday. I would caution on--I draw the parallel between the search for the right rule and the San Francisco Fed study you cited, which was clearly obviously well-meaning. They believed their results sincerely, but there was some measure of uncertainty to the conclusion they drew, nd I think you would have to attach some measure of uncertainty to what you chose as the optimal rule. And for that reason I think it is useful to sort of back away from a rule, consult it as a guide to good policy, but not follow it mechanically or slavishly. But I do think it is important to give prominent attention to rules that encapsulate good past behavior in our conduct of monetary policy, and we do that. Mr. Mulvaney. Professor Spriggs? Mr. Spriggs. I am sympathetic to your point. However, the Fed has limited tools to influence the economy. The problem is that many of the problems are more complex and can have counterbalancing effects. So I don't think in all situations you would want them to adhere to the rule. The rule, in fact, may be not the best policy. For farmers right now the problem is an oversupply of commodities and this hurts them. The value of the dollar hurts our manufacturing sector. So there are many things that are moving at the same time, and I think you wouldn't want a rule that would bind the Fed in dealing with how those different-- Mr. Mulvaney. I thank you, gentlemen. I thank the chairman for the indulgence. It sounds like the two gentlemen may not be that far apart, but I appreciate the time. Chairman Huizenga. Thank you. The Chair will note again, I have a light gavel. But 4- minute-and-40-second questions might not leave a whole lot of time for answers. Ms. Moore. It took him a long time to ask the question. Let me defend my colleague. Chairman Huizenga. With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Foster of Illinois, for 5 minutes. Mr. Foster. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses here. It seems to me that a big part of the diversity challenges of the Fed System are driven by the fact that the geographical regions of the Fed districts are very far from representative of today's population distribution or, in fact, the GDP distribution, or however you might assign the regions. This, to my mind, is a huge problem in the distribution of legislative power in our country. Just the fact that the Senate is grossly unrepresentative of the actual population distribution of the States results in about $.5 trillion per year wealth transfer from the high-population States, which are underrepresented in the Senate, to the low-population States, which are overrepresented in their power in the Senate, and the huge economic distortion to our country that costs us a lot. I know it costs my home state of Illinois about $40 billion a year and is the primary driver of our fiscal difficulties. So I was wondering what your reaction would be to a proposal, which has been floated from time to time, to periodically redistrict the Fed System perhaps once a century, and with enough decades of the time that you would actually have time to plan and it wouldn't be disruptive? How big a problem do you think the male distribution of political power inside the Fed is to its current operation? And do you think it would net out positively to redistrict the Fed every century or so? Ms. George. I don't think that we are handicapped by the current district lines, notwithstanding the changes in demographics that you have described over the last 100 years. And the reason I say that is because each region, regardless of how its boundary is defined, is focused through its operations on making sure that it understands every part of that region. And so the Federal Reserve works carefully--as we do in Kansas City--to make sure that all parts of that region are not only represented, but we understand the economic issues there. Mr. Foster. That would be true with or without redistricting. That is a separate issue than presumably if you redistricted things every district would represent the interests of whoever--whatever people and banks were in its district. Ms. George. I agree. Mr. Spriggs. And I would offer that it appears that way, but over time some of the district lines have been redrawn. So Detroit once was represented by Cleveland and now Detroit is with Chicago, as the whole state of Michigan is. So fine- tuning-- Mr. Foster. At present I think there is still something like a factor of six difference in the number of people in different Fed districts, which is a big number. Mr. Spriggs. Yes, but I think more important would be an assurance that the people of the district actually were represented. The issue now is that the banks are represented. So I think an issue is, how can we make sure that the people themselves are represented? How do we make sure that an actual farmer in Illinois is represented, not some giant agricultural chairman of some huge corporation? How do we make sure that the workers on the south side of Chicago are represented? Because these policies affect them and their voice needs to be integral to it. Currently this is at the whim of the banking community whether those voices really factor into the decision-making because those people aren't on their Board--aren't on the Boards of the regional banks. Mr. Foster. Yes. I was very struck by a study paper from I think one of the Federal Reserve study groups talking about fiscal hawks and doves. And if you look at the course of a cyclical downturn and the choice that the Fed faces of maintaining constant inflation or constant employment, that if you focus on constant employment it has real distributional advantages to those at the bottom. And conversely, if you choose to optimize the other way. And so I think this is a fundamental reason--fundamental argument for diversity, that there are real distributional effects because of the intrinsic trade-offs that the Fed has to make. Just a final comment or a question on rules-based system. If you did go to a rules-based system it seems like the sort of rule you would need to realistically represent our--today's economy would include GDP growth in China and every major country in the world as a fundamental input to that. So you are not talking about a simple Taylor Rule; you are talking about a very involved macroeconomic model, which I take it exists, but really sort of hard to specify in legislation. Wondering if you had comments on that complexity trade-off? Mr. Lacker. Sure. In the models we have that capture economic--the economic economy--economic activity pretty well, implementing a Taylor Rule gets very close to the optimal rule that would be dependent on a broader range of things. So, it is an empirical matter whether that is true or not, but in the models we have it looks as if the Taylor rule does--gets you fairly close. Mr. Foster. Prior to the Taylor Rule there was another economist whose name I forget who actually had a more complete and general version of the Taylor Rule that obviously, because it had more parameters, did a better job. It is not an argument that started with the Taylor Rule. Mr. Lacker. Right. Mr. Foster. Okay. Well, I will be a rarity and only be a little bit over time here and yield back. Chairman Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Foster. I appreciate that. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma for 5 minutes. Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for my time, since I am a resident of the Kansas City Fed, I would like to turn to President George. And my colleague just a moment ago, with his observations about realigning the districts, touches on a subject that to you as a historian as well as a CEO know goes back not just the beginning of the Fed but to the very beginning of this country--about where the concentration of capital should be and control over the economy and how that capital flows. From the very beginning the great battle was should the money centers--New York, Chicago--should they be the dominant force? I suspect that is why my predecessors in this Congress a century ago demanded the 12 districts and the lines be laid out the way they were, to protect the entire country from a handful. Now, that said, this is an issue that is not just theoretical; it is a real subject. In 2009, when I was the ranking member of another committee with jurisdiction over the derivatives markets, in a meeting one night a senior Administration official brought up the topic of realigning Feds as we were preparing to launch in the Dodd-Frank. Taking the 12 districts, did we need that many? Shouldn't the districts reflect the economic strength of a particular region? Now, rather quickly both Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate members in that meeting, made it clear to the senior official that that was not a topic that was acceptable at the time of the Congress. But even as recently as 2009 it was a subject of real debate, apparently at the highest levels of the Administration. Now, that said, from my perspective I like not only the 12 Feds, but I like the sub-Feds. I like the groups in our district in Denver and Oklahoma City and in Omaha who act as consultants, advisors. Could you expand for a moment on the involvement in those communities within the Kansas City Fed, President George, how they add to the process? Ms. George. So the branch offices for each of the head offices play very important roles. And in the case of the Kansas City Fed, I rely heavily on the input from those branch Boards--for example, in the state of Oklahoma to help me understand what is happening in energy markets, and our Omaha Board to understand what is happening in agriculture. And the diversity of input that comes onto those Boards serves us well in the head office. So that sort of regional input is essential, in my view, to make sure that all parts of that district are well-understood. The regional economists who head each of those offices are out in those communities engaging on a daily basis with those that affect that economy and are affected by it. So that structure has served us well. Mr. Lucas. So even though you don't clear checks anymore and those regional banks aren't big currency repositories and you don't grind up wore-out paper money they still serve a purpose, correct, Madam President? Ms. George. Absolutely. The Federal Reserve has changed dramatically in its operations, but its commitment to those regions remained constant over that time. Mr. Lucas. Side question deviating just a little bit from the subject matter, but your district is manufacturing, of course; it is agriculture and energy. We seem to be under pressure these days in the Kansas City district in all three areas. How much concern do you have as an economist and as a banker with the circumstances right now in your district? Ms. George. So we have seen over the last 6 years, a clear shift in the economies of that region based on commodity price falls. So the drop in oil prices, the fall in agricultural product prices, and the strong dollar on our manufacturing have affected that region significantly. So today we do see more unemployment; we are seeing flatter growth, although some sectors are still growing. So those are important inputs as we look at that region relative to the performance of the national economy. Mr. Lucas. So it does matter having eyes and ears all of the country. Thank you, President George. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Huizenga. The gentleman yields back. With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado for 5 minutes. Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. And, President George, you are going to get some questions from me too, although Mr. Lucas stole a few my questions. Let's just go back to basics. How many directors are there for each of the regional banks? Ms. George. There are nine directors. Mr. Perlmutter. Nine. And what are the basic requirements of those nine directors? Ms. George. The first requirement is integrity. And, of course, beyond that there are three bankers, there are three businesses, and there are three that are selected by the Board of Governors. So six of those nine represent labor, represent community, represent generally what is reflective of the region in that district as well as the three bankers on our Boards. And in the case of the Kansas City Fed, those three bankers are community banks. They are individuals who connect tightly with many aspects of meeting the credit needs of our region as well as community leaders that we have in our class B category and on our class C directors. Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And this applies to all of the regional banks? Ms. George. The-- Mr. Perlmutter. Nine directors for every one of the regional banks? Ms. George. Yes, yes. Mr. Perlmutter. And similar kind of criteria--I was looking and it seem like it was agricultural, industrial, commercial, and financial seem to be the basic core principles and noticed, looking at your website, you have these regional kind of Boards within your regional bank. So you have a head office, a Denver office, an Oklahoma City office, and an Omaha office. And Dr. Lacker used the terms, ``everybody is looking for diversity.'' So to the two of you I would say, ``Okay, what the heck does that mean to you?'' I'll start with you, President George, and then to you, Dr. Lacker. What you mean by diversity? Ms. George. So diversity is built into an institution like the Federal Reserve, who is serving a broad public. And it is essential to the public's trust in this institution that the public sees themselves around those that are making decisions and have input to policy. Mr. Perlmutter. So do you mean--and this really applies to both of you--and, Mr. Jones and Mr. Spriggs, jump in if you wish--does diversity mean ethnic backgrounds? Does it mean level of income? Does it mean regional diversity? What does it mean? Ms. George. It means all of that. We will not be successful without having ethnic diversity on our Boards, without having the interest of labor represented on our Boards, as well as the multifaceted contributors to that economy, whether they are business, ag, energy. So we look broadly at all aspects of that. Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Dr. Lacker? Mr. Lacker. Yes. I agree with how President George characterized it. There are multiple dimensions on which when we are looking at rounding out a Board we look at. Ethnic diversity is certainly one of them, gender. But we are also looking at diversity within our region. Our region goes from South Carolina to Maryland out to West Virginia. Very diverse economies. We want representation from around the region. We want coverage across different industries. We want some representatives of someone in touch with consumers and consumer groups, labor. All of those perspectives are valuable to us and we try and balance that when putting together a slate. Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. If I could just add, I think that is one of the key roles that commercial bankers play towards diversity because diversity is race, it is religion, it is--but it is also neighborhoods, it is also communities. And if you think about the Bank On program that was started, it was really driven through the Fed to say, how do we better serve the underbanked and unbanked? And that is really the key role that bankers play because we have a moral obligation to ensure that all of our communities are served. And as we sit on the Fed Boards, our primary focus is to make sure those voices are heard. So as you prepare for meetings you talk to folks from the underbanked and the unbanked all away to the GM running Toyota, and you bring those voices to the Fed and say, ``Here is what we see and what is going on in our markets.'' And that is what is so critical for us as a commercial banker because we are one of the few industries that see everything, and that is the value we bring-- Mr. Perlmutter. Let me ask Mr. Spriggs the same thing. Mr. Spriggs. Regrettably, there are only three labor members among the 12 regional banks. So considering the importance of workers and workers as consumers, I don't think the current system gets us the kind of diversity that we need. In the entire history of the Fed, no--zero--African- American or Latino as ever been chosen to be president of a regional bank. So I don't think the system is designed--it looks like bankers, it talks like bankers, it is people bankers are comfortable with. Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Mr. Spriggs. But it doesn't have a built-in way to assure it. Currently, we do applaud the Fed for paying attention to this and trying to address it, but there-- Mr. Perlmutter. All right. My time has expired. I got it, and I thank you for your answer. And I thank the panel for appearing today. Chairman Huizenga. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schweikert of Arizona for 5 minutes. Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of those occasions that there is just so many things to ask and we will try to do this with a little caffeine in our soul and go quickly. Doctor, I want to make sure I got my head around something you said before. It was a comment of fiscal policy, meaning stuff we do here. And the overtone I was picking up saying, hey, you know, there is all this monetary liquidity out in the system but you guys on fiscal side, you need to put more cash into the system. Was I misunderstanding that? Because was it-- Mr. Lacker. It was Dr. Spriggs. Mr. Schweikert. Dr. Spriggs. And my reason for that is even in this year we are going to push up close to $600 billion of deficit spending in a year where just a couple years ago our projections were, ``Hey, we are only to be about $245 billion to $265 billion this year.'' So somewhere here we are deficit spending like crazy, which functionally is a type of liquidity in the system. We are borrowing money, putting out the door--plus the accommodative. Can you really make an argument that there is not enough liquidity put out in the society in a world with almost zero interest rates? Was I mishearing what you were saying here? Mr. Spriggs. No, you weren't mishearing, but it is not putting liquidity; it is actually putting demand into the system. Mr. Schweikert. Okay, so-- Mr. Spriggs. So at the current rate that we are going we are not getting the level of investment that we should, and that is because we have not had our state and local governments in a position to take advantage of the current low interest rates. They have-- Mr. Schweikert. So let's backup because--okay, demand in the system. Does demand in the system come from more--saying, ``Let's go borrow more money and go build something,'' or does demand in the system ultimately come from the regulatory--the environment we have created here? And a good example would be when we look at some of our environmental rules, I can come to you with a way saying, ``You know if we crowd-sourced much of this data we could clean up the air, do it cheaper, do it faster.'' But instead we still engage in this regulatory model, which is a command and control put in paper and file cabinets, and say that is good environmental policy. It doesn't have anything to do with cleaning the air; it has to do with office buildings full of people shoving paper in file cabinets. Some of our labor policies--some of these things--if you wanted fiscal policy to increase demand, don't we need to be doing a series of things where we rationalize some of the crazy regs we are in--whether it be labor, whether environmental--all the way down to some the creative destruction aspects that actually create new lines of economic growth--that we have created barriers of entry? Is demand available out there not from a bastardized helicopter money, which all of those are sort of involved in, and actually it is a regulatory arbitrage that we need to move through? Mr. Spriggs. The demand is the drop in investment that we have seen, and it is not picking up in the private residential sector, and it is not picking up in the public sector. Mr. Schweikert. But how can you-- Mr. Spriggs. So we know we are down in terms of pupil- teacher ratios. We have let go hundreds of thousands of teachers-- Mr. Schweikert. No, no, no, hold it-- Mr. Spriggs. --and that investment is necessary both for our long-term-- Chairman Huizenga. The gentleman from Arizona controls the time. Mr. Schweikert. Hold on for one second. That doesn't--in a line where I have gone a decade now with falls in productivity, how do you equate, just in those couple of statements of teacher-pupil ratios, with the fact of the matter is capital isn't moving into acquisition of things that make us more productive? Mr. Spriggs. Education does make us more productive. It is a foundation because workers have to be trained and have to be trainable. And so de-investing, as we have done, because our public sector had to live through not having the lender of last resort. They have downsized their operations to a smaller size. Mr. Schweikert. That is not even-- Mr. Spriggs. And so we have to invest in our people. We have to invest into higher education, which we have de-invested in, and we have to invest in their K to 12. Mr. Schweikert. But that is not what the data actually says. The data says, ``Hey, embrace online learning, embrace apprenticeship programs, embrace these things.'' And yet, we have a regulatory barrier right now saying we can't do that because it is not collectivized, it is not unionized, it is not those things. I hope there is a second round because in many ways we have to be willing to tear down many of the very bureaucratic structures right now that have been built that actually stop the very thing you and I want to see, which is more demand, more productivity. And you can't say that I want to support the very institutional bureaucratic structures that have been there for years that are dysfunctional in a modern, data-driven--where this is the driver of the economy, not a mechanism that was designed in the 1930s. And with that I am way over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Huizenga. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Heck, for 5 minutes. Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to express my appreciation to the panel for your presence here today. I want to go back to briefly a line of questioning the Dr. Foster pursued, which was population maldistribution, and preface my remarks by calling up one of my favorite adages, namely the two most powerful forces on the face of the earth are compound interest and the status quo. And the latter point certainly seems to be at operation here. What I heard said in answer to the question of whether or not we ought to reexamine the population distribution among Fed districts was it would make a difference. Things are fine as is, i.e., let's not dink with the status quo. But I guess I want to pose a question in a slightly different way, which is does anybody on the panel genuinely believe that if you were starting from scratch to design the Federal Reserve system and you had any X number of Federal Reserve districts in mind--let's use an arbitrary number, 12-- would it look anything--can you honestly say it would look anything like it currently does? Ms. George. I think it is fair to say that if you were starting today it may not look like that. It may be that every state would want its own regional reserve bank and you would have more. Mr. Heck. Well-- Ms. George. Your point I take, which is the world looks different today than it did 100 years ago. Mr. Heck. --103 years ago. And with all due respect, the largest Federal Reserve district now by population is more than six times larger than the smallest. And I dare say that its GDP is probably 10 times greater than that smallest one. I actually like what Mr. Jones said very much, which is diversity includes reflecting the neighborhoods and the communities. I don't know how you can achieve that without some semblance of a more balanced population distribution. Dr. Spriggs, I want to ask you about this underlying issue, the elephant in the room, if you will, the hawk-dove issue. It is my reading of history that if you look back over the last 25 years the Fed has actually been involved in the achievement of its full employment goal exactly 60 months out of 25 years. They have generally had more tangible targets in that regard than on the inflation side, but I think it is fair to say that they have been more effective on the inflation side. I think it is, therefore, fair to say that they have been much more willing to put their foot on the brake on inflation than their foot on the gas pedal to achieve full employment, as evidenced by the data. Would you agree, sir? Mr. Spriggs. Yes, I would, and I--my third slide emphasizes one good product of full employment. A condition for wages to rise with productivity is we have to be at full employment so that we get the allocative efficiencies of the labor market so that workers quit low productivity firms and move to higher productivity firms. That really can only happen once we have full employment. We have other institutional factors that help to make that happen. But when you look at that third slide that I had you see that productivity continued to grow but wages don't. And when you don't have full employment you don't have the competitive forces that the labor market can bring to bear on making sure that we get as much out of workers but they also make something that reflects it. And so we all benefit. The best policy--and the reason Congress passed the Full Employment Act in the 1940s and reemphasized it under the Humphrey-Hawkins Act--the best policy is for Americans to be at work. That means all Americans need to be at work. The workforce is greatly diversifying. In a few years the majority of new entrants to the labor market, beginning in-- beginning at 2021-- Mr. Heck. Dr. Spriggs, I have 13 seconds. Mr. Spriggs. Yes, so-- Mr. Heck. And I want to get another point in here-- Mr. Spriggs. --will be workers of color. And so it is important that we-- Mr. Heck. I still want to get another point in here, which is I think--and have said so on this committee at hearing after hearing--that it is time to reexamine how we measure full employment, that the continued use of the U-3 measure is inadequate in the wake of the Great Recession, that U-6, which takes into account part-time workers who want to be full-time and some more discouraged workers, is still stubbornly at just under 10 percent, and that if we are measuring achievement of our goal of full employment as we traditionally have in U-3 then we are missing the boat and, in fact, not achieving what it is we should. And I appreciate the chair's indulgence very much. Thank you, sir. Chairman Huizenga. No problem. With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, for 5 minutes. Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, each of you, for being here today. Fascinating discussion. So I am going to follow up a little bit on what the gentleman from Washington was just talking about. You just got back from Jackson Hole, and if you are looking at the full employment mandate, what is the sense of all the members? Are they pretty satisfied with the 5 percent unemployment? Are they concerned? Mr. Jones, I will just take you out on--you got an opinion about how--what the outlook was about the employment--the full employment mandate? Mr. Jones. I can only speak to the regions that we serve. Again, Indiana-- Mr. Pearce. You didn't go to Jackson Hole? Mr. Jones. No. I didn't get invited. Mr. Pearce. Anybody on the panel go to Jackson Hole? Ms. George. Yes. Mr. Spriggs. Yes. Mr. Lacker. Yes. Ms. George. So the focus of Jackson-- Mr. Jones. So I was the only one that didn't get invited. Mr. Pearce. You didn't read the online comments or anything? Ms. George. The focus of Jackson Hole was on looking at monetary policy frameworks for the future across global central banks. The issue that you raise, though, is one that is routinely discussed at the FOMC meetings to understand how are the labor markets performing in the economy today, and judgments about how close we are to full employment-- Mr. Pearce. So what is the judgment? Fairly close--5 percent is okay? Ms. George. I believe we are at or near full employment. Mr. Pearce. Okay. So when you reverse that mirror then you look the other direction then we see a labor participation rate of 62.8 percent. So we are saying, in your words, we are near full employment, so 62.8 percent, which is back--you have to go back to the 1970s to get a labor force participation rate at that level. You and the Federal Reserve are saying that this is as good as it gets. That is alarming because I see the difficulty of spreading the cost of the government between fewer working participants, and it is alarming that this is as good as it is going to get. You put that up against the 1.1 percent rate of growth and then you get into the monetary policies. And so, Dr. Lacker, you mentioned in your more expanded paper that the Fed was created to furnish an elastic currency. And so when I go to my town halls my seniors tell me, ``We lived our life correctly. We paid for our house. We put money into secure investments. We saved. And now, then, you are making our savings worth nothing because we get nothing, and the value of our house is down to 50 percent what it was before 2008. Your policies are killing us.'' And so this this function of creating this elastic currency, as you are talking about--do you all ever sit behind closed doors and ask yourselves quietly what the hell are we doing this for? Mr. Lacker. That hasn't happened in my experience. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument. Its capacity to influence real economic activities is quite limited. I think it was true at our founding, I think it is true now. I think we are all painfully aware of that. When I look at the graph that Dr. Spriggs put up of the unemployment rate going back over the last 50 years, several of those recessions were not recessions we could have prevented but we were left to cope with. Some of those recessions we did cause. Mr. Pearce. Yes. I was asking more about the effect of the elastic currency on the lives of seniors especially, but on the lives of people in the poorer States. My district is one of the poorest in the Nation. Mr. Lacker. I understand. Mr. Pearce. So when the price of food goes up because of this elastic currency it hurts our constituents--my constituents--worse than any other. And I was just trying to get--I didn't want all the history. I just was trying to get, do you ever talk about the effects on the poor and the effects on the seniors of these policies? That was my question, if you want to try it again. I am running out of time so I really do want to ask one more-- Mr. Lacker. I apologize. Mr. Pearce. The-- Mr. Lacker. The answer is yes, we do, so. Mr. Pearce. Okay. Thank you. So the idea that you have information on local economies--I met with the Federal Reserve branch in El Paso just last week or the week before. They have the correct information. In other words, the thing that troubles most employers in our district is they cannot find workers who will show up for work. Yet, when I asked Janet Yellen personally about this she said she had no knowledge. So if the information is not going to be transmitted from those branches who are out there tracking the specific problems of the economy, what difference does this all make anyway? Ms. George. We do bring forward that information. And I think the anecdote that you described is one that I hear regularly in the region, and it gets to understanding what is it that monetary policy can affect and what are more structural issues that will require other sorts of policies to affect? The one you described, I would argue, is one that will have to have other remedies brought to it, as opposed to low interest rates. Mr. Pearce. Thank you. I see my time is exhausted. I appreciate the answers. Chairman Huizenga. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters from California, for 5 minutes. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I would like to address a question to Dr. Spriggs. Dr. Spriggs, in your testimony you discuss how African- Americans continue to suffer from overt employment discrimination. As concrete evidence of this fact you point to evidence that the unemployment experience for better-educated African-Americans is worse than the unemployment rates for less-educated whites. To what extent can and should the Fed take such discrimination into account as it sets monetary policy? Mr. Spriggs. First, thank you, as the ranking member of the full committee, for joining us. When we look before the Great Moderation the unemployment experience of blacks with more education looked like the unemployment experience of whites with more education. And there was a significant closing of the gap that occurred between the passage of the Civil Rights Act and as we came into the late 1970s, so much so that if you looked at young men who were college-educated there was virtually no difference between being black or white. And that gap was shrinking for other African-Americans with less education. Once we went into our high unemployment of the 1980s when the black unemployment rate never fell below 11 percent for the entire decade, that gap grew for all levels of education and has remained. And so that gap can close. We saw in the late 1990s as we did push towards full employment and the Fed allowed the unemployment rate to the fall and did not intervene, despite a lot of people thinking that they needed to be more worried about inflation. By letting the labor market tighten we saw once again the power of competition in the labor market to reduce those disparities. So if we are at full employment--and the Humphrey-Hawkins Act clearly anticipated that market forces could address discrimination. It is one of the findings in the act itself. And you knew Congressman Hawkins as well as I did, and he meant full employment. His language, the preamble, talks about full employment, full opportunity for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation. It is way down at the bottom that there is a sentence about reasonable price stability. These aren't on equal footing. The preamble of that act says full employment and then these other things should be considered. And full employment gets us a lower rate of discrimination. Ms. Waters. That is very interesting. Thank you. And I think that we on this committee who are concerned about full employment should pay attention and engage the bank--the Feds on this. And you are absolutely right. I knew Gus Hawkins and he was very serious about it. As a matter fact, when I was first elected to office here it was in the seat that he held. With reapportionment that has changed somewhat, but I have an appreciation for how you have helped us to understand what we need to encourage the Feds to also set some priorities for and take into consideration. But let me thank the Feds for something that may not mean a lot to a lot of folks--the recent meeting in Jackson Hole, where FYDP was invited to participate, was extremely significant and I have a great appreciation for that. Thank you so very much. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Huizenga. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Utah, Mrs. Love, for 5 minutes. Mrs. Love. Thank you. I believe that the United States House of Representatives is the branch of government that is closest to people. And hearing the concerns on both sides of the aisle on the structure of the Federal Reserve System is a concern of mine, also. And if you couple that with the FOMC structure and the interests and the economic priorities of Americans, especially in western States like Utah, with the answers that have been given I am still not convinced that the western States are represented as well as the eastern States. So with that thought and knowing that concern, I don't think it is enough to just say, ``Well, we believe that it is working well,'' because you do have members on both sides of the aisle that are expressing concerns. And I happen to agree with those concerns that they are expressing. So I guess I would like to know what you think might be done to rebalance the Federal Reserve System to make sure that all Americans are equally representative--represented in monetary policy discussions? President--do I call you President George? Is that okay? Ms. George. So your question is an important one for the Federal Reserve. And as I have listened to this discussion I remain convinced it is a question of accountability and not of the structure of the Federal Reserve. So in the case of the western States, I happen to have a few of those in my region--Wyoming and Colorado, the northern part of New Mexico--we are intentional in picking up information. In fact, today you will see coming out of the beige book, which is released by the Federal Reserve, a sense of each region, which directly includes those kinds of-- Mrs. Love. Okay, so I guess the question I am asking is that I know that you are convinced that it is working. But, like, the reason why I mentioned the House of Representatives being closest to people is that every single one of us are talking to our people. We are talking to our bankers, and they share those concerns also. So again, I know that you feel as if it is representative, but I am trying to look for different ideas where that thought--they may feel like they are being more represented. Yes? Mr. Lacker. So an important thing to keep in mind is that, although the Federal Reserve, as we have described, is deeply engaged in understanding the entire country, we have just one monetary policy for the whole country. The set of interest rates we set at the FOMC apply to--in financial markets and they set monetary conditions for the whole country. So while President George or President Williams from San Francisco or myself can go and explain what conditions are like in our district, it is still--as in this body, we have to make the case that it is good for the country as a whole, one policy change or another. So there is a matter of understanding and then there is a matter of what tools do we have? Now, here in this body you have tools that can address things in one particular district or another. We do not have that. We do not have a way to target monetary policy to a particular region. Mrs. Love. Okay. So if all else were equal, why--what difference would it make, then, if there were--not to say whether I agree or disagree with this--but if there were more representation on the western side then that shouldn't change things either then? Mr. Lacker. Well-- Mrs. Love. If that is the argument that-- Mr. Lacker. So in my view, the question was asked earlier, if we would--what our prediction would be fore how the districts would be drawn were they to be drawn again today, and I think it is a fair prediction that they would be different. Would we be worse or better off in terms of how the Fed engages? I think we would be about the same, and I think this goes to the way Esther George framed it, which is that the structure doesn't impede us. We would probably be as good as we are now, perhaps better. But it wouldn't make a big difference, in my mind, for the degree to which we are connected. Mrs. Love. Of course I end up with about 30 seconds. But, President Lacker, just to switch gears very quickly, you--in one of your speeches, Investing in People as Economic Growth Strategy, I just want you to give a brief description on why district bank presidents would be interested in workforce development and why that would be a good thing. Mr. Lacker. So when I look around my district Carolina is deeply affected by manufacturing and the like and what has gone on in the last couple of years. It is hard to think about economic conditions without thinking about workforce and labor markets. And when you think about how labor markets work and what kind of transformation the Carolinas have gone through, for example, it is hard not to think hard about skills, and then you are thinking about, well, how do people acquire skills? How does the changing demand for skills affect people's choices? What can we do to enhance the rapidity with which our labor force adapts to the changing mix of skills that our economy seems to need? Mrs. Love. I am out of time. Thank you. Chairman Huizenga. The gentlelady's time has expired. And speaking of the Carolinas, the Chair recognizes Mr. Pittenger of North Carolina for 5 minutes. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Lacker, thank you all for your attention and participation with us today. But, President Lacker, I would like to ask you in your testimony you spoke about the Federal banks and the representation they have supplied from various interests in diverse regions of the country. I happen to be from Charlotte. We are certainly in your district. Can you walk me through how the Fed, as a fully public institution, would affect the American public and the economy? Mr. Lacker. How we affect the American public and the economy? So it is paramount to keep inflation low and stable. I understand that maximum employment is part of our mandate, but keeping inflation low and stable is our best way of achieving that. The recessions of the 1970s and the early 1980s were deliberately engineered by the Fed, essentially, in response to spikes in inflation. We are very concerned about that when we are thinking about, are we at full employment? Is there a chance that we have gone beyond it? Is there a chance that we are approaching going beyond it? Because the risk of overstimulating the economy is the risk that inflation--expectations and inflation get out of control. It may be an unpopular notion these days, but if that were to happen it would be hard for us to calibrate a response without risking causing a recession. And I would point out that in recessions minority groups tend to do very badly. Mr. Pittenger. With that in mind, I guess I would ask you, with the Fed's extraordinary policy stance that has been in place now for a full decade, what--has it produced the robust economic growth that we have since--seen since post-World War II? That has been the norm in the country. Give me an explanation for why you believe that is true. And I will go down the line. I would like all your perspectives on that. Mr. Lacker. So there was a discussion of labor force participation earlier. The fraction of the working-age population that is looking for work or is employed has fallen. We are no longer benefitting, as we did in the second half of the 20th century, from the increasing engagement in women in the labor force. The rate of growth of productivity has fallen, as well. This is the byproduct of a confluence of forces, including capital formation. Neither of those is under the direct control of the Federal Reserve, I would point out. So while we can achieve price stability with low growth or high growth, we have limited ability to shift to a high-growth economy. Mr. Pittenger. President George? Ms. George. I would simply say that the Fed's accommodative policies I think have been important to the progress and the recovery. But I think to see where the economy is at this stage after this many years suggests that there are other economic policies that should be considered and come to bear on further progress that the economy needs. Mr. Pittenger. And could you elaborate on that, just specifically? Ms. George. So, for example, I absolutely agree with Dr. Spriggs. It will be important in the United States that any individual that is willing and wants to work is able to find a job. A healthy labor market will be important, but we must address issues that were raised earlier about businesses that aren't able to find the kind of workers they need, whether that comes from training, education, and other things. We should seriously look at all policies at our disposal to make sure that that workforce can continue to contribute to the economy. Mr. Pittenger. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. I would just elaborate on what President George said. The single biggest issues I hear from our clients is the inability to attract workers. I think, as Dr. Spriggs said, workforce development is critical. Full employment needs to go beyond what we normally realize full employment to be, and to do that, we need to have more workforce development and training programs to assist with the growth. Mr. Pittenger. I would like to ask you as well, do you agree that the Federal Reserve district presidents brings important regional and local knowledge to the FOMC deliberations? Mr. Jones. I absolutely do. As sitting 6 years in St. Louis and speaking for southern Indiana and western Kentucky, and listening to the voices from agriculture to community leaders to, as I said, the head of Toyota, I can tell you Dr. Bullard and his team took those input very seriously and passed it on. I think it is critical. We represent diversity. I understand the need for more diverse in terms of race and all, but we represent a diverse economy. And I have clients who sell on the corner of Main and High, and I have Toyota as a client. Those voices are all critical to the process. Mr. Pittenger. President Lacker, do you agree with that? Mr. Lacker. Yes, I do. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you very much. Mr. Spriggs. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I do need to leave, and I am sorry that I won't be able to stay for the second round of questioning. Chairman Huizenga. Yes. Mr. Spriggs. But I do appreciate you extending me the invitation, and thank the ranking member, as well, for the invitation. And I apologize. Chairman Huizenga. Not a problem. And we appreciate you, Dr. Spriggs, sharing some time with us here today. We are hoping to do a quick second round, but first we still have a first-round questioner here, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Stutzman, who is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for being a little late. I just came from a Budget Committee meeting. But it is good to see Mr. Jones, a fellow Hoosier, and would like to ask Mr. Jones a question. But first I would like to address President George. In a recent article you observed how Carter Glass, the House sponsor of the Federal Reserve Act and the legislations key author, explained the challenges of establishing the Federal Reserve System in a report to the 63rd Congress. Your article quotes Congressman Glass' observation that, ``In the United States, with its immense area, numerous natural divisions, still more competing divisions, and abundant outlets to foreign countries, there is no argument either of banking theory or expediency which dictates the creation of a single central banking institution, no matter how skillfully managed, how carefully controlled, or how patriotically conducted.'' My question is this: Are observations like those of the Democratic leader Carter Glass--does the decentralization nature of our Federal Reserve System bring with it a considerable level of integrity under which we can conduct the most basic economic policies--monetary policy? Could you address-- Ms. George. So I think from the start these issues were debated a long time in coming to the conclusion that a decentralized structure would best serve the country. I think that remains true today. And I think its value comes from drawing from many parts of the country--not just Washington, not just New York--in bringing those views to bear on something that is very important to the lives of every American, and that are decisions about money. Mr. Stutzman. I think that Mr. Jones can probably attest to this, what is going on in Indiana, because I see this frequently. I mean, I believe that our economy--it is pent up right now, and that it is ready to go but it needs certainty and it needs to know the rules. And if we don't get our monetary policy right, can our economy grow? Ms. George. So as I said earlier, I think monetary policy has played an important role, but it is not the only factor in what can stimulate an economy. And as I listen to voices in my region there are questions about other kinds of economic policies that come to bear on their decisions. So I would not want to overburden monetary policy as being the answer to all the issues that can be affecting our economy's performance today. Mr. Stutzman. Sure. And I agree with that, but we are focusing specifically here on decentralization or centralization. Again, sound monetary policy is really a foundation for an economy that is going to be strong. Mr. Jones, it is great to see you, and I know that your work in Indiana has been recognized not only in Indiana but across the country. Could you talk just a little bit--just for the benefit, I guess, of others. But in Indiana we have seen--Indiana is pretty strong. The economy is strong in Indiana. Can you talk maybe a little bit about the differences between some of the state regulation that is encouraging growth, but also I feel like there is this conflict with Washington policy where they are kind of butting heads against each other? And I think not only could Indiana be doing better, but the country as a whole could be doing better. Would you be willing to touch on that? Mr. Jones. I would. First, thank you for your service to Indiana, as well. I mentioned earlier workforce development is a critical issue we hear from our clients. The other issue we hear, and often, is regulation. And it is both current and pending regulation that is challenging businesses to know the roadmap to success. And you think about coal, which is critical to our state; you think about agriculture and some the changes in agriculture--and clearly, Congressman, you know that as well as anyone. But businesses need a clear path to success, and part of that is understand the regulatory environment they operate in. Access to capital is a critical element to all of our customers and our clients. So you think about just banking regulation--and I will make an observation--and you have seen Flat Tony. I spoke to our head of compliance yesterday, and getting ready for our first CFPB exam, which is going to be--is very, very important--we submitted 7.5 feet of paper. If you stack it from the ground up it is 7.5 feet. My head of compliance is five-foot-nine. I am sure there is a lot of good information in there, but it requires a lot of people to review who could be out giving access to capital. We are symbolic of other industries as well, whether it be coal, agriculture, manufacturing; regulation is a real challenge for clients. Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Chairman, I saw Flat Tony and he was about my height when I first visited him, but now he is much, much taller. It is unbelievable to see the amount of regulation that our institutions have to deal with, so--not only flat but he is tall now. Chairman Huizenga. All right. With that the gentleman's time has expired. We would like to quickly move into a brief round two of some questioning, if that is all right with our witnesses? And I will start by yielding myself 5 minutes. And, Mr. Jones, while you were chatting a little bit this struck me as we were talking about your business and what you do. Obviously we have had conversation, not just here but other places, that the Federal Reserve System is lacking diversity and not doing enough to serve their communities. I used to be a licensed realtor when I got out of school. And as I said, my family has been in construction and those kinds of things. And one of the fundamental cornerstones of my licensure as a realtor was to recognize that people aren't black, people aren't white, people aren't yellow, people aren't brown, people aren't red, people aren't any color other than green--meaning they can either afford it or they can't afford it. And that is how you had to treat customers. And that is how you had to deal with people. And it was an equitable way of looking at that. And it seems to me that there is a similar translation, that we need to make sure that there is an equal opportunity. And what I am really concerned about--and I just saw our friends--our FYDP friends just left, unfortunately. I would have loved for them to hear this. My goal is to make sure that we have an equality of opportunity for everybody no matter where they live, no matter what their income is. And we have seen time and time again that being thwarted, sometimes for maybe a good goal, but certainly the ways that it has gone about hasn't gotten it there. And I noticed in your testimony that your organization is remarkably diverse and heavily involved in various communities. And I know that you have a business to run, as well, as part of that. And so my question is, do feel a conflict between, say, reaching out to literally tens of thousands of people? I know you did--I think it was 900-plus sort of seminars on how to better manage financial affairs on one hand and making money and having an ongoing business with employees and for your investors on the other hand. Do you feel any conflict in that? Mr. Jones. Not at all. Just the opposite. It is good business. If you think about what we do as community bankers, our moral obligation is to strengthen our communities. And that means dealing from the underbanked and unbanked all away up to the large corporations. In doing so, we strengthen the markets that we serve. And there is no real conflict there because that is what a community banker does every day. There is 8,000 of us throughout the country that every day wake up and worry about what we can do to make this a better place for everyone. And those are the voices that we also bring to the Fed as we think about what we do as members of the Federal Reserve Board is to talk about all those voices. So clearly, Mr. Chairman, there is no conflict. It is just good business. Chairman Huizenga. And what I am very concerned about-- because I, too, like one of my colleagues, I can't remember who it was--as they sit down and talk to employers a couple of things that they expressed is they said, ``We have a hard time finding somebody who will show up every day be able to pass a drug test.'' Those are those are two basic thresholds that they need to meet. And they say, you know what, we will take care of so much of the rest of it. We need to have people who will show up, and who can show up clean, and who are willing to work. And that is a struggle that we have had in Michigan. And I saw a chart earlier today, Michigan is doing different or better than other States in the region of Chicago. Interestingly enough, Illinois is the lowest performing and Michigan is the highest performing. I would say that it is not just about regulation and taxation; it is about the environment that has been created in. And we in Michigan know that we have very much attempted to create a accommodative, growth-oriented atmosphere, and Illinois has gone the opposite direction. That is why you see billBoards at that at the intersection of Illinois and Indiana saying, ``Welcome. We are in Michigan.'' Mr. Jones. ``Illinnoyed'' is what it says. ``Move across the border.'' Mr. Chairman, I would just say you just took the Hoosier handbook and just took it to Michigan. So it is-- Chairman Huizenga. Yes. We did, because Indiana tried that on us for a number of years with those welcome home billBoards. But we-- Mr. Jones. It worked for a while, too. Chairman Huizenga. It did work for a while. We got that turned around. But I want to make sure that we are moving forward on this, we are not losing sight of Main Street. And Wall Street is doing just fine. We have to make sure that this economic recovery, as slow and as long and as sluggish as it has been, reaches down and goes to all levels. And we are seeing that. Because of that upward pressure we are seeing wages come up in Michigan. We are seeing some of that--some of those things restored, but not fast enough. Mr. Jones. Right. Chairman Huizenga. And ultimately that is about demand. I filibustered myself. My time is up. I was going to ask a quick question of the--of our bankers, but I appreciate your time. And with that, I will recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for agreeing to stick around for a little bit longer. And I, too, Mr. Chairman, am sorry that Mr.--Dr. Spriggs left and some of the other folks who were observing left. But having said that, I do want to engage the panel on some things that I heard Dr. Spriggs say, and he got a lot of pushback for this in the context of other things that I have heard here today. There has been a--we have put a lot of pressure on the Fed to grow our economy. There is a lot of criticism or praise on both sides of the aisle regarding your fixes--what you have done. But that being said--I am--I think it was Mr. Jones that said that you guys have a blunt instrument with monetary policy. I think it was Dr. Lacker responding to the gentlelady from Utah, saying that monetary policy has to fit for the whole country. We can't have a monetary policy for New York and then another one for Montana. So you are limited in terms of what you can do. That being said, I guess I am wondering what you think about the slow growth, the lack of a recovery in certain parts of the country among folks like African-Americans with regard to what, number one, what Congress is doing? We focus a lot on austerity and we believe that that has hurt growth. For example, there is a gap of $1.7 trillion in infrastructure spending, something that used to be bipartisan, and it is predicting that could put 20 million people to work if we were to do that versus giving tax cuts. And so I guess I am wondering--and Dr. Spriggs said that there is a lack of demand. So as we talk about regulation being too great, the debt being too great--he made the point that 70 percent of our economy depends of people having money so they can spend it. I know in the African-American community they spend every dime that they get. So if shops are closing down an African- American communities it is because they don't have any money. So I am wondering what you all think about what we do with regard to hurting growth this country. What is your opinion on sequester, and austerity, and cutting Pell Grants, and so on? And I will yield to maybe Dr. Lacker? Mr. Lacker. You have asked a difficult and troubling set of questions. You asked me to stray outside of the bounds of Federal Reserve policy. I can tell you, though, that we do think about that and it is hard not to in our country. Baltimore, for example--inner- city Baltimore is part of my district--and in thinking about the events that have transpired there in the last couple of years it is hard not to think about why it is that African- American communities have lagged so far behind despite the last 50 years of efforts, despite the vast array of interventions we have made, despite the vast array of policy initiatives that have brought to bear on that. Dr. Spriggs is right that Federal Reserve policy can influence the broad sweep of demand in our country. But there is nothing we can do to guarantee where it is going to show up. Is it going to show up in Silicon Valley? Is it going to show up in the Carolinas? Is it going to show up in inner-city Baltimore? Ms. Moore. Just specifically, though, is the time to be doing austerity with slow growth? Mr. Lacker. I would think you would want to evaluate programs on their merits, not for what they add to total aggregate demand. Ms. Moore. Okay, just, a transportation bill or infrastructure bill that was adequate--do you think that that would help your efforts to-- Mr. Lacker. I think you should evaluate a transportation bill based on what our transportation infrastructure needs, not on whether it adds-- Ms. Moore. I think we have like 80,000 bridges that could collapse just like in Minnesota at any point. Mr. Lacker. That is a legitimate-- Ms. Moore. It is not like we don't need--we don't have to go out and do a survey to see if we need to fix the roads and bridges. Mr. Lacker. That sounds like a legitimate reason. I have no reason to disagree with it. Ms. Moore. Would that or would that not spur our economy, Mr. Jones? You are chomping at the bit. Mr. Jones. Well, chomping at the bit is a strong thing. But clearly, creating jobs, creating demand will help all of our markets. And the economy is just not one subsection; the economy is a multitude of policies and procedures and inputs. One of the biggest one we see his confidence. And if we could get a consistent message that said, ``It is okay,'' then I think you will see more and more people respond to the economy. But it is awfully difficult when all the negativity that surrounds our economy creates challenges. Ms. Moore. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you for your indulgences, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Huizenga. You are welcome. With that, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, for-- Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my friend the ranking member, we partially agree here but it is--like on infrastructure, if the left would be willing to work with some of those who want to stack--adjust the capital stack and how you pay for it, there is a way to get there. As the discussion we had earlier with Mr. Stutzman, when you have seven feet tall of regulatory paperwork for a bank examination, how does that improve productivity in our society? Because functionally you have paperwork, it goes into file cabinets. So that is what they said earlier. That was the testimony just about 20 minutes ago. So for many of us we are fixated that we believe monetary policy probably has gone as far as it can and now it is our responsibility here, but we need to get creative, instead of just trying to do more of we are going to throw a bunch of cash at something. We see how well that crashed and burned in 2010 and 2011, the years where we--all these models said this was going to happen and it didn't. So can I go off--this is just a different discussion. But, Ms. George, you are someone I wanted to sort of ask because-- walk me through first the services your Federal Reserve branch provides. Just sort of, from someone who was on one of the old check 21 committees and those things many years ago--yes, I am that old. Walk me through the services you provide. Ms. George. So the regional banks are involved in the payment system, and we still have-- Mr. Schweikert. So payment--ACH? Ms. George. ACH. We are still clearing checks, believe it or not. We distribute cash to financial institutions in our region, and we are involved now in an effort to look at how to modernize the payment system by working with the private sector on how that might happen. Mr. Schweikert. Okay. So you already know where I am going. I see now, fascinating discussions coming out of Silicon Valley of using a distributive ledger model to basically--it is a functioning debit-credit ledger with sort of an airtight mechanics to move money and dramatically cut down the costs. Where if I am--let's use PayPal just because they are in my neighborhood or a substantial portion of them are--they have landed--what--a Utah industrial Bank to move money. They pick up those regulatory costs, where if I use a block chain, put it into a cryptic currency or whatever you want, some designation of value and clear it on this side, all of a sudden I have moved money for fractions of a penny. But that is outside your mechanics. From your discussion--because you have lots of really smart people around you--are you ready for what you and I would call the creative destruction that will help us bring dramatically more efficiencies in the movement of money, the distribution of those resources? And are you looking at these alternative transmission networks and how to lower the cost? Ms. George. So our responsibilities in this area are to make sure that the payment system is efficient, that it is accessible, and that it is safe. And so the nature of this technology holds some interesting promises, and as part of our work with the private sector to think about how this will affect the payment system going forward, we are very much engaged in learning from them and trying to see where this intersects. Mr. Schweikert. But you already know--we already have a handful of our large money center institutions--two of them-- that are actually already engaging in the movement of money using a distributive ledger. Ms. George. Yes. Mr. Schweikert. And why this is so important is for a lot of us who really care about economic vitality, but also optionality for things like millennials, is you are the Uber driver, and you decide you are going to put $0.50 into your retirement account or into your savings account every time you drive someone, and you hit--we just do a smart contract in the back so the payment hits, the $0.50 goes over. Except on some of the networks that just cost $.18, $0.27 to move that $0.50. You cannot do the sort of micromanagement of small dollars. I need a network, a--I need a backbone that is dramatically less expensive--safe because this is soon going to be our banking institution. And my great fear is, as we have had the conversation of efficiencies in our society, productivity--I desperately hope that the Federal Reserve doesn't become one of the barriers to the adoption of the dramatically more efficient society that we desperately need for that productivity. And my fear is Silicon Valley is about to run around you and build optionality that says the Federal Reserve is my barrier not my partner. And with that, I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Huizenga. Thank you. And for our last question of the day we will go back to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Stutzman, for 5 minutes. Mr. Stutzman. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all for your testimony and thoughts and advice today. It is really helpful. This is a--it has been a fascinating discussion and I--Ms. George, you made a comment about disturbing cash and things like that and then, of course, Mr. Schweikert holds up his smart phone. And I guess that is where I wanted to go, and I think it kind of falls under maybe governance? And maybe you could just--all of you could share with us--online banking, security, access? I just found products just recently that are extremely easy and almost feel like they are--they are very easy, which is nice, but the security of them--can we trust the technology that is coming along? And I know this has--I don't know if it has been talked about at all today, but if some of you could kind of address that and what is your role? And then, Mr. Jones, if you could talk--maybe you could lead off, Mr. Jones, about what you all are doing is a banking institution in online banking and how much of it is being done on smart phones? Websites are being adapted to fit smart phones because that is where most of the banking is being done. If you talk that; then, Ms. George and Dr. Lacker, if you could talk about what the Fed's role is in all that? Mr. Jones. Sure. Great question. And clearly as you think about our industry and the dramatic changes, fintech and mobile banking are going to be at the forefront over the next few years, if not already. Your question really revolves around cybersecurity. And I would offer, as a commercial banker, this is an area where great cooperation between our regulatory agencies and the commercial banks has made a significant difference. Both the Federal Reserve, and the OCC, and now the CFPB have come together, and we are working to make sure that those systems are safe and secure. Richmond, where Dr. Lacker is, is the head of I.T. for the Federal Reserve. And when I was the audit Chair in St. Louis we were able to experience the great controls they have in place. So take that knowledge of the commercial banks--8,000 commercial banks can't work separately on things like cybersecurity. It takes a collaborative approach. And again, as I said, the ability for the Fed to convene commercial banks--the OCC the CFPB--to really combat that has made a significant difference. And it has made large, significant improvements for us. Ms. George. So there are rapid changes going on in our payment system, as you note. And the initiatives that we currently have underway is to carry on a tradition we have had for most of our history, and that is to work with the private sector as they come up with different ways to conduct payments to make sure at the end of the day safety, accessibility, and efficiency is part of that. And so the effort we have undertaken right now is in the process of looking at those issues around new technologies to see how that can be best managed on behalf of the public. Mr. Lacker. We do, as Mr. Jones noted, invest a tremendous amount of the Federal Reserve System to a secure our systems to make sure they are safe and effective, but that we keep up with the latest cybersecurity threats. And cooperation from agencies based around here in D.C. have been very important to that. For the banking system as a whole, we cooperate with sharing what we know and can share. And it certainly led us to focus on the extent to which the cyber risks are being managed effectively in the banking sector, as well. So it is a supervisory focus for the teams that oversee these large organizations and small, as well. So it is something we take seriously. It is an evolving landscape, and so it is one where we are going to have to continually keep keeping up, in essence. Mr. Stutzman. How do you do that? Do you hire teams of experts who know their industry that are on your side that are working together but also making sure that there are safeguards in place? Do you have to invest more down the road or are you already making an initial investment focusing on banking? Mr. Lacker. Our investments have increased substantially over the last 10 years in information security. And yes, talent is something we look at. The particular skill sets you need are highly valuable in the marketplace and we work very hard to find the skills that we need. Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, thank you. Anybody--I don't know-- any further comments? There is 20 seconds left if anybody wants to say anything. If not, I will yield back to the chairman. Chairman Huizenga. Gentleman yields back. And I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time and coming. Deeply, deeply appreciated by all of us. I think I have had a number of colleagues as they have been going giving me thumbs up. And we thought this was a very informative, very helpful hearing as we are looking at what the future of this monetary system is and the effects of it. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. I ask the witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. And that with that, our hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X September 7, 2016 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]