Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

That. Some people suggested recently that american works need to be willing to work longer hours. I dont think Many Americans work fewer hours by choice unless there are Health Issues or child care limitations or other responsibilities. I think Many Americans working part time would like to work full time. The slack in the labor market seems to indicateu kateicate we have a ways to go. Discuss the concern for the number of workers working part time but would like to be in the workforce. We have a larnl share of the workforce, believing it is around four and half percent working less hours than they would like to work. The broader measure is the measure of the Unemployment Rate we normally look at is 5. 3 . Broader measures that capture that part time for economic reasons a measure like you six. We have a picture in the Monetary Policy report and we show how high that is and of course it is always higher than the narrowing concept of unemployment it is very much higher than you would expect historically given the narrower measure of unemployment. To my mind this suggests that our standard Unemployment Rate doesnt state the degree of slack we have in the labor department. Senator corker. Thank you, chairman and Ranking Member, i appreciate it. Thank you for being here. I spent time with you when you were getting affirmed and enjoyed that and talking about views on Monetary Policy. I know as you were coming in you were claimed to be the first dove coming in as head of the Federal Reserve. I know you supported all of the rate hikes on the other hand that took place. This is true. I want to make sure everybody understand that. Thank you. We did talk a lot about this moment in time we are in. The fed has become very affected by the market swings. Much of that may actually be driving Monetary Policy. Not just the stats. We have got you know, we had this was the first i guess we had two other times in modern history of negative Interest Rates that i am aware of. So we had this long period of time where we have negative Interest Rates and it seems the fed continues to watch not just the stat but is affected by the market and worried about disruptions in the stock market. Wondering if you might address that. I would push back against the notion we are undually affected by the ups and downs of the stock market. We are certainly very focused on the fundamental and Economic Statistics that describe where the economy is and in terms of the labor market and inflation, which are the two goals assigned to us by congress and a lot of different kinds of economic information go into the forecast that drive our Decision Making. The forecast about where the labor market and inflation will be moving. But financial conditions broadly, and i am not talking about the stock market here uniquely but a wide range of financial variables that i would say go into assessing financial conditions, the ease for households and businesses of borrow borrowing that affect spending pattern whether it is Consumer Spending or our Competitive Position in the Global Economy that affects our ability to export and the competitiveness of import competing goods. The state of financial conditions broadly speaking is one variable that does affect our forecast of the economy. So we cant completely ignore what is happening in the markets to housing and credit influences that affect borrowing cost. All of those factors feed into financial conditions and they are relevant to forecasting the economy. So it is one element of our evaluation but i dont think we pay undo attention to it and i dont think we should. The libing will process is something that i know Ranking Member alluded to dodd frank and senator warren and i worked on those and came to an agreement and i think senator shelby offered an amendment that passed 94 votes and made it stronger and making sure it became law. We have questions about the living wills as they came up. The last round was a little concerning on my part and a few others there was a little regulatory capture taking place and these living wills were looking in substance and yet maybe the fed wasnt really you know putting the pressure on these organizations to deliver as they should. I had a good meeting this week with mr. Trullo and my understanding is the substance of these living wills, i know you sent out statements regarding what happened and i think they are much better than they have been. There is clear the living wills have to be able to resolve an institution under bankruptcy and i wonder if you might speak to that for a moment. I agree with you. We worked closely with the fdic in this last round a year ago to set out a clear set of expectations for what we want to see in the current round of submissions. We have worked closely with the fdic and the banking organizations to make sure that they have been very clear about what we expect in this round of subcommission. We instrictucted them to enhance their disclosure in the public part of the documents they produce and it looks like prelim preliminary reads suggests they have made progress there. And we are going to be evaluating them in the coming months. And we indicated that if we continued to see short comings in the living wills that we will use our authority to determine that these Resolution Plans dont Mead Dodd Frank requirements. That is where we stand and that is what we will do. Thank you very much for your service. Senator menendez . Thank you mr. Chairman. Madam chair, thank you for your service to our country. I appreciate the work you have been doing. As you know and i stated many times the feds dual mandate directed to pursue maximum employment and stable prices. How the fed chose do is balance these goals has significant consequences for the quality of life of millions of americans. Our labor market is improving but most americans peal like they have a lot of catching up to do for the financial crisis hole we were put in. It would be a mistake on my view for the feds to shift the focus away from jobs at this critical time. With Interest Rates near 0 the feds have no room for error if they tighten too soon. If they tighten too late the risk is lower and the fed has plenty of ammunition to keep the rates anchored. In order to avoid choking off Economic Growth prematurely will the fed wait to raise Interest Rates after it has seen signs of actual inflation rather than based on a fear of future inflation which may or may not ever materialize actually . Senator, i agree with your characterization of the risks that if there is a negative shock to the economy with Interest Rates 100 we dont have great scope to respond by loosening policy further where ppwhereas with a positive shock, we can tighten Monetary Policy. We have the tools and know how to do that. That is a consideration that has been weighing on the Decision Making for quite some time. It has led us in part to hold Interest Rates at the very low levels for as long as we have. So that has been the factor we have been taking into account and it partly explains the policy that we have been following. There are lags and we need to be forward looking. On the other side that is the list from waiting too risk long to act as well. We have to balance those risks. You asked if we would like raise rates before inflation that has risen substantially and i would point you to Section Three of the report that we gave to you and showed a summary of the forecast for each participant in the economy and policy. As i mentioned in my testimony, most participants envisions economic developments would proceed for the rest of the year in their view make it appropriate to begin the process of normalizing policy sometime this year. If you look at their inflation forecast at the endf of the year on a year over year bases most participants envisioned total inflation is below 1 and that is below the 2 objective and envisioned the year as a whole at the end of 2015 as running in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 percent. You can see they are seeing it appropriate to tighten policy. But what we have said is we want to have reasonable confidence before we tighten the inflation over the medium term will move back to 2 . What is going on here is that we think there are transtory influences, namely the decline in oil prices and the strengthening of the dollar that are holding inflation down. And that underlying inflation, even with core inflation, will import prices in declining import prices are a transtory Factor Holding that down. As we see the labor market improve and see the influences wash out we believe that inflation will move back to 2 . And so if we have that confidence, the committee would be likely to begin forcing inflation going back up to the target. Normally in my experience i would have interrupted you a long time ago because i expired my time but because your response was so interesting and i am trying to grasp where your policy view is from it that i let it go. Let me just make one more, if i may briefly chairman a comment, and i listened to you intently and from my perspective, i think it is much less of a problem and the alternative which is cutting off muchnoded job and in come growth and i will submit that for the record. Want to come off job growth and Income Growth and we want to see inflation move up to 2 . We would not be pleased to see it linger indefinitely below 2 . Madam chair, a meeting was held to examine the role of the financial board in the framework. And international Decision Making was expressed overtaking u. S. Decision making. I am curious if you agree it is important for the United States to set its own insurance capital and other standards before agreeing to any such standards internationally. We have working on u. S. Standards. Nothing applies to u. S. Firms until we went through the formal rulemaking process with orders in the United States. So no International Discussion or agreement applies to u. S. Firms firms. Discussions are taking place internationally about appropriate standards. I think the standards other countries adopt need to work for our market and firms. We end up with a competitive firm that is competitive for our firms to compete in. We participate in those discussions with an understanding that nothing applies to u. S. Firms or until we have gone through a full rulemaking process here. Thank you. I would like to followup up with reducing systemic risk. Do you support giving specific firms a specific road map for direc direcde direc direc direcde decertify . I think firms should have the ability to decertify. The fstock has to review and make sure they remain appropriate. That is an annual procedures. Firms are given detailed information and interact with great deal with fstock during the process of decembersignation and understand the Business Model and strategy that caused them to be designatureed. What about their Business Activity is responsible for desigination and i dont think it is appropriate for fstock or the regulators to try to run these businesses and micromanage what these firms do. I dont think there is any single appropriate off ramp and you should not be telling them exactly the following list of thinks. They understand what they need to do to change their profile in a way that would change the evaluation. If they were this happening they were thinking about makes these opportunities i am sure there are many opportunities to interact with the staff and gain perspective on whether or not the kinds of changes they were thinking of you know would significantly change their systemic footprint. Thank you. One last question. As you know madam chair as well when you talk the markets clearly listen. As you work with the Federal Reserve open markets committee you look at a balanced approach and you are looking at several goals. You clearly defined your goal is a 2 inflation rate. What about when we talk about maximum employment. Where do we go . What do you lay out if the firms look at it in terms of what to expect from the committee . What is your goal in terms of the maximum employment . So as we say in our statement of longer run goals since Monetary Policy strategy there is Something Different about the goals. We have a goal for inflation, 2 . And maximum employment. The central bank can chose or determine what its inflation target should be. We chose 2 . We are in good company that is what most advance Central Banks have chosen. Submit their forecast to write down what they regard as normal. That is something that can change and has changed over time. We report that publicly. We report that publicly. Thank you madam chair. Madam chair i know you share my concerns with income inequality and the trend of middleclass wage stagnation. You have said there are tentative signs that this has picked up it continues to be relatively subdued. As the economy improves how do you expect middleclass wages to show substantial improvement . What are you looking at . We look at many measures of wage growth. Three aggregate measures that we look at our employment cost index, Hourly Compensation and average hourly earnings. They dont always tell the same story. I think we have seen a meaningful pickup over the last year in the growth in the employment cost index. There was was Less Movement in other areas. There are early indications there. The levels of increase are still relatively low and inflation adjusted terms, compensation or wages are increasing rapidly. What you expect to see in the next year . I would it expect to see a pickup in aggregate wages in the economy. I would expect to see some further upward movement. Where they can go depends in part on productivity growth. For example if productivity grows and theres uncertainty about what it is, if it were to trend around one and a half with 2 inflation, we would expect to see this growth. I guess the key to that is there would be some correlation between productivity growth and the growth in wages as well. There tends to be over long periods of time but its not always true of a shorter. So there is some uncertainty about this. We have been through a period in which wages have been growing last less rapidly than productivity. I would expect to see a pickup. Its not a certainty certainty here but it is in my mind evidence of some remaining slack in the labor market. Thats my forecast is that we will see some pickup in wage growth. It is important to remember that there is increasing wage inequality in the United States over a long. Of time. Certainly going back to the mid to late 70s. That reflects a deeper set of factors that the Federal Reserve doesnt have tools to combat. What we are looking for is an over all job market that is functioning in some sense well but we see big gaps and increasing gaps between the wages and compensation of more skilled and less skilled workers. That has been holding down middleclass wage growth for a long time for other reasons. Let me ask you about a different subject. Ive voted for dodd frank because i wanted to see safety and stability in the system. It wasnt a desire to loaded up with regulations but a desire a desire to make sure we had safety and stability. Now what we have seen is a growing shadow Banking System which brings other concerns. As you look at this, since shadow banking entities are not held to the same regulations how concerned should we be with the potential risk involved here . That is what we are trying to drive out in the first place with dodd frank to eliminate some of the systemic risk. I think you have put your finger on a very important phenomenon. We were well well aware when we put these regulations in place in dodd frank that wherever you draw the regulatory perimeter there will be a tendency for activity to migrate beyond it to what we say the shadow Banking System. We clearly need to be very vigilant about monitoring risks that are migrating to that system and certainly in the Federal Reserve we have hugely ramped up our attention to shadow Banking System. The exstock is focused on risks developing broadly through the Financial System in shadow banking and the Financial Stability board has a large work program devoted to shadow banking. We are thinking about regulations we might address like minimum margin requirements that would apply not only to banking organizations but more broadly. That might address some potential risks in the shadow Banking System. Of course we have seen some heightened attention to risks but the fcc and money market funds which was an important piece of the shadow Banking System where risk developed leading to the crisis, but you are absolutely right to focus on that and we are attempting to address those as best we can. Thank you madam chair. Thank you mr. Chairman. Chair yellen think you for being here today. As i travel across South Carolina and people express concerns about america leading from behind whether it has been about the administrations failure to enforce their own redlines or the ill advised deal with iran they have the sense that our nations timid, comfortable sitting back and taking keys from foreign actors rather than occupying our traditional role as leader of the world. Im certainly not suggesting that you somehow are in charge of literary policy or middle east diplomacy, but you are in charge of our regulatory policy for some of the countries most successful businesses. Sometimes it seems to me like our u. S. Regulators are leading from behind especially when it comes to our involvement in International Bodies like the Financial Stability board or the International Association of insurance supervisors. For example they designated domestic insurers shortly after the sb did. That suggests that they were happy to follow that lead. We saw something similar happened with Capital Buffers for money market funds. They seem to take their cues from the fsb. I would encourage you to break from the tradition from leading from behind by developing a capital standard that first works for our Domestic Insurance Companies rather than letting International Standard setting bodies like the one i mentioned are ready write rules and export them back to our country. I would also encourage you to take the lead in that body in promoting activity based regulations of insureds as a group that reconsiders its methodology later this year. I havent yet heard him say that he would do the same for insurers. Can you commit today that the fed will take the lead and follow these two course of action both on Insurance Company capital standards and on promoting the replacement of entitybased insurance with activitybased activity based regulation . I think senator rounds was starting down this road when he asked this question. It appears appears to me that the european regulators are concerned about the creditor protections we at home are far more concerned about protecting the policyholders. The difference yields different philosophies. Id bike like a commitment to use our domestic approach and exported as exposed to importing their philosophical disposition on these standards. I guess all i can really say is that we are playing an active role internationally with insurance which is why we joined the ia i s which is why we are participating jointly with the Insurance Office and the state insurance commissioners. We are collaborating to think through what is in the appropriate system of capital and liquidity standards for globally active firms. We have a strong interest in doing that and its important for us to have our voices heard in that process so i dont think its accurate to say we are sitting back and not trying to play a leadership role. I think we are. Domestically youve been given increased flexibility to design and tailor a set of insurance regulations, capital standards that we think are appropriate for our institutions. We want to carefully tailor them to be meeting the unique characteristics of the firms we are supervising. We are taking the time and interacting with those firms to make sure we understand what an appropriate insurance set of capital standards would look like. Thank you. I. I think at the end of the day they all speak and sound pretty academic but what it boils down to is the advice americans have for retirement. Mr. Chairman its good to see you again. I want to follow up on the question. Dodd frank requires institution to have a plan for how they can be liquidated. I want to close in and wrap pretty rapid and orderly fashion how are they supposed to determine whether these plans are credible or not credible. If theyre not credible do they have to simplify or sell off their assets. Last august they identified significant problems with living wills submitted by 11 of the biggest banks in the country the fdic determined that these living wills but the f didnt. The fed said if they cant reflect those improvement in the new living wells they expected to find new living wills but they were not credible. The 11 banks submitted their living wills at the beginning of this month and i know you havent finished reviewing them yet but i want to make sure we are really clear on this point. Will the fed find living wills not credible if the bank has not fixed each of the problems that the agencies identified lost august . We are certainly prepared to make those determinations. We will work with them as we have been doing to analyze the living will to see whether or not we feel the responses to the directions that we gave to these firms are satisfactory and not, and if we find that they are not we are certainly prepared to say they are not credible. Okay good, im glad to hear that. Two of the agencies they were addressed were establishing a rational and less complex legal structure and developing a Holding Company structure that supports resolve ability. J. P. Morgan chase, just to pick one example has over 3000 subsidiaries. It would subsidiaries. It would take a lot of work to establish a rational structure that permits j. P. Morgan to be resolved quickly as required by law. But to be clear again, the fed will find j. P. Morgans living will not credible and the other ten banks not credible if they have not taking concrete steps to significantly simplify their structures and are not sleek enough to be resolved quickly . Well we have given him those directions and we will evaluate that. I would simply say that the regulatory report that we receive indicate that these firms, since 2009 have reduced the number of legal entities in their structures by approximately one fifth. You will note that number i gave you is not from 2009. Its over 3000 subsidiaries at latest count. I just want to be clear that you are willing to say not credible if they dont meet the legal standards that they could be quickly resolved and that includes how complex their structure is. Agreed that they need to be less complex and weve given him that direction. Im not sure we can determine exactly how complex they are by just counting the number. Fair enough. There all not equal. Some are are set up for very narrow purposes and are not really material parts or wouldnt represent serious impediments to resolving the firm. I dont want to determine this by a count of legal entities. Okay i understand that, but do remember the statute says rapid and orderly liquidation and that goes to the question of complexity. I raise this because the living wills are one of the primary tools the fed has to make sure the taxpayers wont be on the hook if one of these giant banks fail. Its critical that that the fed uses this authority and to make our Financial System safer. I want to ask one other question. In dodd frank, congress directed the fed to enforce tougher rules on banks. That covers roughly 40 of the biggest banks in the country, about one half of 1 of the 6500 banks that we have in the u. S. Together this one half of 1 holds more than 14 trillion in assets about 95 of all the banking assets in this country. Forty banks, 95 of all the assets. The tougher scrutiny is designed to reflect regulatory scrutiny. So this means more scrutiny on these 40 banks than on Community Banks and credit unions. Theres been talk about raising the 50 billion threshold to a hundred billion threshold. I just want to ask a question, we learned we learned or should have learned in 2008 that in a crisis, several banks can find themselves on the verge of failure at the same time. Do you think it could pose a systemic threat if two or three banks with about 50 billion dollars in assets were on the verge of failure . When the significant number of firms is at the risk of failure, often its because they have highly correlated positions. We always have to worry about that resulting in a drying up of the economy. During the Great Depression the banks that failed were small. They were a lot smaller than 50 billion or adjusted or adjusted for that time period when many banks fail, of course we have to be concerned. Thats 11 reason why, for all institutions, even Community Banks, regular regulatory requirements are higher. We want to see safety and soundness throughout the entire Financial System. Although the most systemic firms, as you pointed out need the greatest scrutiny. Its the top 40. I just want to say there are two approaches to this issue. The first which every republican supported is to raise the threshold to 500 billion. Then hope for the best and if it doesnt work out the taxpayers can pick up the tab again. The other approaches to play it safe. Keep the threshold where it is and rely on the feds to tailor the rules for these different banks. That is the approach i supported since the taxpayers are on the hook when the economy implodes. I would suggest the congress be careful as well. Mdm. Chair some people propose we dont have any threshold but the regulator has the power to do their job. Youve seen some of that im sure. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and i want to followup on exactly the same question that senator warren just just finished on. Last september i asked the Federal Reserve to rule about raising the trigger when a bank is systemically important from the 50 billion level. In hearings we heard that the asset threshold should be raised or change because its arbitrary, includes institutions that are not systemically important focuses only on size and produces undesirable incentives. They said several years of testing and assessment have given regulators a better understanding of the threshold and given the intensity and complexity of around stress testing, regulators havent felt the additional regulations dont warrant the expenditures associated with those large institutions. I guess my question to you is another way of asking the same question that senator warren just asked, do you agree with that analysis that there would be a benefit if Congress Change the threshold and focused more on substance of evaluation of true risk rather than an arbitrary number . So i would be open to a modest increase in the threshold and i guess the reason that i would be open to it is as he indicated and she just stated, we do have some smaller institutions that under section 165, are required to do supervisory stress testing and Resolution Planning. For some of those institution it does look, from from our experience, like the cost exceed the benefits. But, if there were to be a modest increase in the threshold, i think what is essential is that the Federal Reserve retain the discretion to subject an institution that might fall below the new threshold to higher supervisory requirements. For example we would be able to insist that it perform supervisory stress testing if in our view view, the risk profile of that firm in spite of its size led us to believe that it had systemic import that made us think it was appropriate. That is possible that we might feel we would need that discretion but at present, every firm over 50 billion has to do things like supervisory stress testing and i think what we found is in some cases the burden is associated with that for many of those firms exceeds the benefit to systemic stability. Retaining that discretion requires them to do that if we thought it appropriate that would be very important for me to support that change. Thank you i appreciate your openness to increasing the threshold and focusing on the flexibility we need there. What im hearing you say, let me put this differently. It seems seems to me a principle we should follow is tanks with similar risk profiles should not be subject to different standards. That applies on both sides of any arbitrary number which we might pick. The question what i think i heard you say is the real issue is the risk profile. The regulator should have the ability to evaluate the risk profile of our Financial Institutions and regulate them appropriately. Did i hear you appropriately . I think thats a fair statement. There was a study published that uses a mark multifactored approach to grading these risks. Each institution is subjective to the regulations of dodd frank. Are you familiar with that study was to mark. No, i havent read that. I have learned to ask. I appreciate that. The study showed that different banks that are subject to the 5,050,000,000,000dollar trigger have vastly different risk profiles. The question i was going to ask you is whether this study has validity and showing that there are vastly different risk profiles among banks that are above the 50 billiondollar trigger. Isnt it correct that there are very different risk profiles in this pool of banks that are above the 50 billiondollar trigger . Yes there are very different risk profiles. Some are large Community Banks that are not especially risky but on the other hand we have a couple of u. S. Firms that are designated as g sibs. There are certainly a lot smaller than the larger firms but they have Business Models that make their activity systemically important. So firms of the same size can have very different risk profiles and the appropriate supervision of those firms can be quite different. Thank you. This is not a question but ill conclude with this comment. I thing we would be better served if our regulatory system allowed our regular tours to focus on risk and relate to that rather than forcing them to use arbitrary numbers. Thank you. I just quickly because i had the opportunity to listen to these questions, the position would be that a threshold is appropriate but then discretion to look at different banks over that threshold differently is what you think is the ideal . Within limits, we can tailor our supervision to the profiles of the firm. I would be concerned if the threshold is raised your now saying that banks that used to be above the threshold now fall below the new threshold and no longer automatically subject to a number of requirements. They might be involved in risky behaviors. Those two firms need to continue doing that. We know they are below the threshold but we want to subject them to it anyhow because its right for them. Now there may be many other firms that have now been relieved from what was a burden that isnt appropriate for them. So just to be clear this issue of threshold is not to essentially get below threshold you you dont have any response. You want to follow the risk even below the threshold. Thats correct. We have observed a number of firms that are that its not clear the benefits exist. There is a function of value of having a threshold or however you want to characterize it, because if you dont, you have to have a contest with each institution about whether they fit within your criteria. Whether they truly have risks and you dont have the entre the issue of the moment and of the next decade or more millennia maybe. Absolutely agreed. We internally are highly focused on Cyber Security. I believe we have a robust and comprehensive Cyber Security system in place. We realize the nature of the threats we face are constantly evolving. We are routinely doing selfevaluations of our vulnerabilities and engaging third parties to review what we are doing. We have a National Incident Response Team that is constantly 247 responsible for intrusion detection incidents response, vulnerability assessment, assessment, trying to do their own penetration test to see how secure we are. We have Business Continuity plans for all of our business lines including our most systemically important Payment System like fed wire open market and operations. If the primary operators of these systems were to suffer an attack, we have backup facilities that could take over the operations. Switching to the regulated industry, are you testing them as hard . Are you going in with routines to assess, are you trying to sort of break in, in terms of a regulator, looking to see if they are conducting operation appropriately . So i dont think we are breaking in and doing our own detection test but it is an important aspect of our supervision to ensure Financial Institutions of appropriate measures are in place. We have specialized teams of supervisors that are trained in it security who examine the institutions to make sure they are appropriately taking the appropriate steps. We work jointly with other regulators for the Financial Sector more broadly under the leadership of treasury and we support efforts throughout the government to make sure that were addressing these threats. Thank you very much. I think we will be having this conversation for a long time. Senator warner. Thank you mr. Chairman ill go ahead and start. The other senator came back. He was here earlier. He came back im sorry. I want to start by complementing the chairman on one of his first qo chair yellen about the notion of taking some of these funds that are used to shore up the Financial System and using them for purposes not related to the Financial System, the way some people have proposed related to highways. This is what happens when you skip a line on on the hierarchy of the democratic side. Those of the big banks. Although i would acknowledge that while i have great sympathy for the fact that our communitybased banks, close to 7000 of them are buying into this and getting the 6 return 6 return, some of the money market funds that can access the emergency funds, if they have to then get this ability to invest that 6 , thats a pretty good trade for the banks that the Community Banks dont have yet. I am going to forgo my line. [laughter] the one thing i know that i think senator warren and senator brown offered, actually do believe on a Resolution Plan that weve made progress and we are seeing plans with greater rigor and candidly even some of the plans in terms of the capital standards that are being put in place might even get close to meeting those requirements. The one area area we still dont have the regulations on is the regulations on longterm debt. We have to make sure that longterm debt is clear that it could be convertible in the event of a challenge so that we can use bankruptcy so that we can meet the goals that they so carefully articulated. I think what i would love to hear is some assurance that we are going to see those final legs by the end of the year so we can have this full guidance out about these Resolution Plans. So i cant give you a specific date but i want to assure you it is a very high priority item for us. Chairman eulian i didnt give you a specific date. I just said by the end of the year. I cant promise a date. This is really important to us. This is not something we are just letting slip and it is right at the top of our. When we look at the Capital Structures and increased ability for these large banks to withstand trauma having those rules out on the longterm debt and conversion component really. Totally agree. Id like to be able to respond to senator brown that his approach may have been solved with title i entitled to on this issue. We completely agree there is a need for a longterm debt requirement. Most of these firms in their living wills proposed a resolution strategy that is similar to the fdics single point of entity strategies that they would use under title ii. In either case it requires adequate longterm debt. We are working jointly with fdic trying to figure out better parameters. We are working on other agreements. We want to see this globally and promised to to get it done as soon as we can. End of the year sounds like a great time. We will make every effort to do so. He has spoken. One of the things we have seen, lets switch to World Monetary regulations for a moment. As we see the bank of japan and others continue to deal with their currencies which indirectly obviously makes their products cheaper our products more expensive do you worry at all that the actions of these other Central Banks are putting more undue pressure on america to be the engine that drives and affects the whole world policies . Monetary policy for domestic purposes often has some impact on the countrys exchange rate. The fact that we are the stronger economy are likely to raise rates sooner and continuing to ease policy in their country, those factors have ten to push push up the dollar. That has tended to create a drag for net exports and to diminish our growth prospects. That is something that affects the stance and appropriate future stance of Monetary Policy. Even taking taking all of that into account the very significant appreciation we have seen of a dollar, we need to take that in the context of the overall strength in domestic spending in the u. S. Economy. Our committee concluded that even taking that into account the continuing drag bear we still think the u. S. Economy will grow. This will be a factor that they look at. My times up but they are continuing to look at that and putting the burden on our economy to carry the world forward. It is a factor and we are constantly looking at it. That is essentially what is happening. The floor recognizes the senator. The bill that was reported out of here for the banking legislation back in may does not raise the threshold in section 165 of dodd frank to 500 billion as a lot of people think. In fact the language the legislation keeps the 50 billion threshold in place while all institutions to be considered are enhanced through regulation and gives the regulators the fed generally, the discretion to determine what institutions above 50 billion should be subject to it. Banks above 500 billion would receive no such discretion. I just wanted i just wanted to clear the record for this. Could i speak for a moment . The chairman is correct. The difficulty was made much greater so i believe what senator warren said is correct. It doesnt protect the safety and soundness of our debt. We can debate this for a long time. We will. Thank you mr. Chairman. No problem. Thank you. As you stated in your testimony they will look to raise the federal funds rate at some point before the end of the year. You and the others on the fm oc must make this decision weighing all the information at your disposal. I understand that. That. But as we have discussed previously i am still troubled by sluggish wage growth in america. We continue to see depressed labor force of participation and inflation runs well below the 2 target. Unless the question, if there is still slack in the labor market views made different here and ive heard from experts on both sides, but but i refuse to let the loud voices of those screaming for the fed to act drown out the voices of the middleclass families who continue to wait quietly for economic recovery to show up in their takehome pay. The question of when the fed will raise rates has received a lot of attention. As ive said before i think the single biggest problem facing the decline of middleclass income. As you know know they have decreased by 6. 5 . Median income adjusted for inflation is 3600 lower. What can we do to increase productivity . What what is a catalyst for stronger wage rose because it feels like were pushing on a noodle. Weve seen Structural Forces over a long. Of time push down on middleclass middle wages. The Economic Research that has been done suggests a continuing high demand for Skilled Labor and declining demand for less Skilled Labor. We we see an increasing wage gap between those who were more skilled and less skilled, partly reflecting the nature of technological change and globalization and productivity growth as you mentioned has certainly slowed down since 2007. We seven. We point this out in the Monetary Policy report. It has has been decidedly slower than before that. I think its important to focus on policies that would improve productivity growth. They have to to do with making sure that every american child is able to get a worldclass education and is able to succeed in this economy and that we take actions to promote innovation and entrepreneurship and Capital Investment both public and private, that are necessary to drive that. Those are the the kinds of policies that congress and the public need to consider to address these deeper structural trends. They are not just related to the cyclical state of the economy and they have been around for a long time. Theres certainly a limit what Monetary Policy can do. We understand that. Here we are facing sequestration in the congress. Current spending bills current spending bills proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would slash funding for Key Resources pell grants opportunity grants, 300 million from training and job programs. These are the kind of programs you mentioned in part as catalyst to stronger wage growth. I dont want you to weigh in on specific programs. Obviously thats not your job. Let me ask you this, as we look to the end of the year, can you the year, can you talk about the broader impact to our economic recovery that drastic automatically triggered budget cuts would have . As well as the potential for Government Shutdown and the uncertainty surrounding the debt ceiling . Do you believe these events could create fiscal headwinds for our economy . In recent years physical policy has gone from creating a significant drag on the economy to being roughly neutral and that shift in the favorable direction has helped promote economic recovery. I would be concerned about something that was large fiscal shift. I i dont know whether or not this would be but policies that or governmental actions that create uncertainty, whether its a Government Shutdown or running up against the debt ceiling, they reduce the confidence of households and businesses on the ability of their never meant to function in an effective way and create fear and loss of confidence. Honestly thats not helpful to recovery. Getting to the wage growth conundrum, wouldnt cutting education and Training Programs that make workers more able to be productive the counter to that . I dont want to weigh in on specific programs but i do think education programs, programs to promote training and skills acquisition are very critical in addressing wage inequality. We thank you again for your appearance and your willingness to come. We hope we can work with you on some of the post legislation because i think there is some misperception of what we are trying to do. We we are trying to give you a lot of power and you have some power but none of us want to weaken the bank system. Thank you i look forward to working with you and the committee. Ay. Under the Plan Companies that share their profits with employees would receive a two year tax credit from the federal government with the goal of boosting employee wages and motivating workers. The former secretary secretary of state talked about the plan at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. This is just over an hour. Hello dover. Wow will have to do a microphone adjustment. How how is everybody doing this afternoon . For those of you who dont know me i am of former teacher and mayor of the city of dover. I i am serving on the board of commissioners and i want to thank you all for coming out today. We all know why we are here. I want to take a minute and talk a minute about, if i could about dover and the special place dover plays in clintons life. This is the first town hall in New Hampshire for hillary. [applause]. I cant think of another place to do it. Do you agree with me . [applause]. One of the things i wanted to mention, actually i was told to mention a lot of things but im not going to do that. That long history, history is the only thing we have to rely on when we go to elect the president. I want to tell you that through my experience in the last 40 years of being in the public light i have never had a group of individuals like the clintons who worked hard for the middle class throughout their entire lives. [applause]. So hillary is here today to talk about Economic Growth. She is here to talk and take your questions regarding our economy and you know we had this whole promise here in america and that promise is that if we all work hard, and we play by the rules, that we can get ahead. For the few folks who dont know me ive run a business for 40 years. I run a poor mans marina here in dover. I can tell you that the old saying that a rising tide floats all boats, i can tell you that the greatest expansion in peace time since world war ii is during the time that the clintons from arkansas occupied the white house [applause]. I dont know about you but in dover we are still members of the workingclass and middleclass families and we need an ally. We need an ally in the white house. They wont forget where they came from and i can tell you you have my word, that, that they have never forgotten where they came from. [applause]. So as i mentioned earlier a rising tide, im in the boat business so i know this, rising tide floats all boats, we need a new rising tide in america and its my privilege to introduce you that person will bring that tide. Hillary rodham clinton, the next president of the United States [applause]. Thank you, thank you. Thank you all very much [applause]. Thank you all so much. Thank you wow. Thank you very much george and i do have a really soft spot in my heart for dover. There are a lot of young people here which im thrilled to see. It looks like some of them werent born in 1992, the first time i came to dover, but i remember it so well. Thank you for gathering today on this beautiful summer day for this town hall. Right before i came in i was told that the Dover Babe Ruth under 16 Girls Softball Team just won the state [applause]. I played softball a long time ago. The last team i played on in high school was sponsored by the local candy distributor and the candy distributor got to name the team that he sponsored so we were the good and plenty. [laughter] he kindly suggested that we wear a uniform that correspond to the color of the candy. Black, white and pink. Remember . We did. Im especially pleased that that team is now at regionals and i wish them well. I hope today to talk to about the economy and hear from you on that issue or anything else that might be on your mind. Some of you may know that i gave a speech this past monday about what is at the center of my economic agenda and that is raising income for the American People. [applause]. Making the middle class mean something again. Helping people who are stretched so thin with their budget be able to meet their daily a expenses and save for the future. This is the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression in america. It took a lot of hard work for people to pull themselves out of the ditch we were in. It also took good leadership from a democratic president and i believe i believe pres. Obama doesnt get the credit he deserves for digging us out of that ditch. You know, in fact there is a pattern here. We have had, have had, in the last 35 years, five president s. Each of the democratic president s inherited problems. Economic economic and other problems but focusing just on the economy, from their predecessor. I remember very well when right after the election my president s said to be that deficit is a lot worse than they told us. I remember meeting with president elect obama about a week after he won and he was asking me to be secretary of state and he started by saying you know, the economy is a lot worse than they told us. We know it takes a lot of hard work to get the economy moving again. As you heard george say, im very proud that during my Husbands Administration we did have the longest peacetime economic expansion in american history, 23 million new jobs. Im very proud that now pres. Obama and the hard work of the American People reversed losing 800,000 jobs a month. We recovered more than 12000 jobs. Were on the right track. Were were standing but were not running yet. Its going to be up to the next president figure out how we take the game of the two terms of president obama and build a Strong Foundation for raising income for hardworking americans. That is what i want to do. Ill tell you what the contrast is because thats what this election, in many ways, will will be about. Everybody running on the other side has a different economic philosophy. They really still believe that if you cut taxes on the wealthy if you lift regulation on corporations that somehow Economic Activity will trickle down to all the rest of us. Well, we have tried that. We. We tried it and it didnt work. You know the old saying, fool me once shame on you, for me twice shame on me. We are going to have a big debate in this campaign about what Economic Policy to follow. I think its very important to be engaged and the as informed as you possibly can. Theres no place more important to do that than right here in New Hampshire. Thats why on monday, i laid out a three strategy for strong growth. I dont think you can have growth or fairness you have to have both. The way we do that the way we do that is getting back to basics. Of course there will be a lot of important recommendations that i will be making throughout this campaign about what worked, what the evidence about what works is and how we can hopefully Work Together to implement those and of course there are a lot of things we need to do. Make sure we finally the Women Equal Pay for equal work. [speaking in native tongue] and i am going to say this is not just a womens issue. This is a family economic issue. If people are not being paid fairly that hurts everybody, the Small Business that does not get enough customers because people cannot afford with there selling. I mean that is a growth strategys. A growth strategy. The more we equalize what people are paid according to there own effort the better off we we will be. Our longterm strategy we must make investments that we will grow our economy and research and investment, infrastructure. It is beyond my understanding that we are having a partisana partisan battle in congress. We are in a global competition. Other countries are investing in there infrastructure command i do not mean the physical infrastructure come as important as that is the more roads and airports and bridges. I mean our virtual infrastructure. We need to get affordable quality broadbands everyplace this country just as we have electricity. Now, theyre is one particular issue i want to talk about. I reallyi really think our corporations are missing a big bet. Because credible studies quite a number of them actually got through that profitsharing with your employees is good for the employees, good for the businesses, good for the economy. Ii want to incentivize more companies to do just that. We havewe have some great examples are New Hampshire. One you are familiar with. You know market baskets provide profitsharing for employees who work more than a thousand hours a year. For both fulltime and parttime employees. Ii am pretty proud of that and think that it makes Good Business sense. And what you here from companies that you no what, this increases productivity, loyalty of employees. It gives you a bond with your employees. They will work harder, look for more things to do to improve what is going on in the stores. That is just common sense. Treat someone like to have a stake in your business and they will stand up straighter, work a little harder, make a difference. A difference. Theyre is another company here in portsmouth pack world investments. And joe started this company as an Investment Company and is also a big believer in profitsharing. He provides profitsharing to his employees. So i want us to try to convince more companies to do just that. I am proposing a rising income sharing profit tax credit that would encourage more companies to provide profitsharing by giving those companies a 15 percent tax credit of the amount of the profitsharing for two years to get that started and to see that it works like so many of the other companies that already do it [applause] you know, i think that by providing examples and incentives and comparing what works to what does work just like economic policies that work and dont work corporate policies that work and dont work we have got to do a better job using information as a tool for changing corporate behavior the purpose. Itit is a big part of what we can begin to implement when im president. And i believe that if we do more of that we will send a very stronga very strong signal. I we will have more to say about corporate purpose next week about we need to get businesses back looking after there employees and there customers and there communities and our country notcountry, not just their executives and shareholders. Theyre has got to be [applause] theyre has got to be a recognition that there is more in it for all of us if we do it like that. And soand so therefore i am going to be presenting a lot of plans that i hope will find favor 1st with voters and then as president with those who i am going to try to influence by incentivizing but eventually by changing laws if that is what it takes so that we have more have an economic approach that reflects how lucky businesses are to be operating in the United States of america with all the we provide the support we give, the rule of law that is part of our National Economic climate in the forward it to work more as partners and not have an adversary relationship between our economy and our society. I believe the ability of the economy to work for everybody and get our democracy towork for everybody command it will require changes in both. [applause] so i am excited about this campaign. Campaign. He cited below we can do together. I really believe that this is one of those elections that we will set the course for the rest of the century command we need to get it right. We cannot go backwards. What i am proposing is not left to right some much as it is forward or backward command we we will go forward. [applause] so with that lets start with your questions. They can be about anything. Anything. The firsthand as i go up was this young woman either. My name is brenda bouchard. I have been a caregiver for my husband for nearly ten years. He has anger onset alzheimers. My mother is almost 89. I am one of 65,000 alzheimers care givers in the state of New Hampshire and no firsthand the pain of seeing someones the boy to this disease. I no the financial burden is disease carries for families as well as our country. My question to you is, in your president ial campaign and beyond what we will you do to ensure this devastating disease and the potential bankruptcy to Medicare Medicaid will get the attention it needs. Let me thank you. You. Let me really thank you for your caregiving and your care. [applause] i want you to think about what you said. 65,000 caregivers right here in one state and multiply that many, many, many times over. We have a caregiving crisis. We have sowe have so many millions of people who are providing either fulltime or parttime care for those they love, spouses, children their aging parents or other relatives. To come. New line have to come to grips with this because right now we are not doing enough to support you and the important work you are doing in your home. I want to make three points. With respect specifically alzheimers i am 100 committed to increasing the research that goes and alzheimers. One of the real unfortunate setbacks from the cutbacks in the congress is that so much of the health Research Done by the National Institute of health and other firstrate Research Institutions has been cut back. I was talking to a scientist the other day who said that when the congress cut the money for the nih and others literally labs were close young scientists were laid off and it stopped progress in a number of very important efforts including with respect to alzheimers. We have to get back funding our research and science agenda and in particular our research into diseases like alzheimers because we are were going to be on the brink of making some breakthroughs secondly, i think we have got to do more within the government programs, particularly medicare to provide more support for caregiving that is given by relative. Now, people worry, how do you make the judgment. We couldwe could pay for a visiting nurse, pay for somebody coming in from the outside but how do we provide some kind of Financial Support for the woman taking care of her husband and mother. I think there smart enough to figure that out command i think our failure to do so will actually end up costing more money because more people will not be able to do what you are doing. They cannot afford it, so they turn and say, i have to keep working because i also have dependent children at home. I have to keep working because my husband no longer can. And so i cannot do any of the caregiving. I have got to go into the formal workplace. Well, then somebody is going to have to come in and help thats going to cost money. Why cant we be smart enough to figure out how we support the Family Caregivers in addition to the nonFamily Caregivers. Caregivers. And i am working very hard to figure out how we do that because clearly the cost projected into the future is quite substantial. But as a friend of mine who is taking care of her husband said to me not so long ago, if every Family Caregiver stopped working tomorrow he would have to find about 350 billion worth of care to make up the difference. So lets figure out how we do that and dont discriminate against Family Caregivers. We also need to give you more respite care. Theyre has to be a program for respite care. [applause] too many people do the work do it out of love, devotion, but it is a 247 job and they dont have time to go to the store, have a cup of tea with a friend, get the hair fixed. Theyll have time to do anything unless there is some respite care in the home or in another facility. And finally, the last thing i would say as im looking at an idea that i heard about recently, the care core. Here is what i think we might be able to do. In every community have a coordinating mechanism so that people who are trained in how they would care for someone who has alzheimers or any other ailment could be on a volunteer basis willing to come in to your home for a certain time. There are a lot of people were tired, a lot of retired nurses and teachers, teachers,teachers, Business People and others who look for volunteer opportunities. And i think if we had a care core where we hoped to find just a mechanism, maybe the online request, maybe the telephone line, maybe line maybe somebody to make the appointment, we could help supplement what might be done by both the family and professional caregivers. But this is a huge issue, and as you can tell i have been thinking about it. My late mother lived with us until she passed away and she was thankfully in good health, but she had some real beginnings of deterioration physically. So i am well aware of how important this is and i really want to thank you for raising it. Thank you so much. [applause] well iwell i am going to get to as many questions as i can. Use myuse my microphone. My name is marie, a High School Student from dover. I have a question. I am involved with the lg bt community and know that gay marriage was just legalize in all 50 states,50 states, and i dont want to undermine that. Thats awesome. But i was wondering what you specifically were going to do about antidiscrimination laws in the workplace. I dont want to be able to get married to someone of the same gender but also be discriminated against in my workplace. [applause] thank you. Thank you. Well you arewell, you are right. The Supreme Court decision was an extraordinary historic milestone. And i think it is worth it if you have any interest looking at the decision because it is a constitutional decision that more than that it is aa decision about how we treat each other, respect each other, acknowledge. People should not have to be lonely. People can have relationships love one another. It was quite a moving decision. You put your finger on the next big challenge, and that is discrimination. When i was in the senate supported the end of law, to end discrimination against people based in those days as we used to say on Sexual Orientation and we do have to do more to make sure that we end discrimination in the workplace in particular. So i am committed to that. I we will work for that. As pres. I we will do everything i can to get it enacted into law. [applause] maybe we can get a microphone. Here comes one. The room got overcrowded. We were going to have microphone set up and then we put in more chairs. Thank you for doing the work you are doing. Anyway i want to thank you for speaking out about the problem that corporations are having too much ability to write the rules in this country. This isthis is related to that, but the city of dover one of the communities that has gotten a grant to acquire military equipment from the federal government. In thisgovernment. In this case and our Motor Vehicle called the bearcat manufactured by company, lancome. Lancome actively help cities figure out how to do the paperwork so that they can qualify for the money that the federal government we will and provide so that they can get these military vehicles which then cause caused problems with Community Relations and communities with the police start to act perhaps more like military forces is set of people protecting the committee. My question is, what steps will you take to make sure our local Law Enforcement do not become just another Profit Center for the militaryindustrial complex . [applause] you know, that is an important question on several levels, one of which you just mentioned. And also because the militarization of local police has been in many ways a problem overa problem over the last couple years with some of the incidents that we have had in communities across the country. I have already spoken out and we really do need to look hard at preventing the militarization of local police forces. And that means a lot of this heavy military equipment that was either already manufactured or manufactured after september 11 which is now made available to local communities should not necessarily end of the. Let me make this. Part of the reason for this is that after september 11 i was a senator from new york. I was theyre but then, you know, hours the next day seeing what had happened in new york and as part of the effort to try to protect our country through the knew department of Homeland Security a lot of money was appropriated that would go through that process that could then be used by cities and towns across america. I think it was too broad. I think it was unfortunately lasting too long so that it is still going on as you rightly say. I think that local communities working with the federal government need to take a hard look at whether we need to be paying for and subsidizing the transfer of such equipment to local communities. There still may be places where it is warranted but i, but i think it has gone too far and needs to be arraigned in. Thank you for raising that. [applause] so many hands. The guys at my back the whole time. And here comes a microphone in a hurry. Sec. , thank you for coming to New Hampshire and speaking to us today. You talked a lot about building our future in this country. As a young person i am concerned about the threat of Climate Change. The threat of Climate Change to our families and our country and around the world. Scientists have shown we need to keep it was at the fossil fuels on the ground to prevent the 2 degrees celsius warming which would be dangerous for women and families around the globe. My question is, you commit to banning fossil fuel extraction of public land from this country which is where 70 percent of fossil fuels. Yes or no . The answer is not until we have the alternatives in place. That may not be a satisfactory answer to you but i would have to take a responsible answer. I am 100 percent in favor of accelerating the development of solar wind advanced biofuel, energy efficiency, everything we can do. [applause] and i would hope that we could get to the. That you made colleges looking at public land and cutting back over time, phasing out the extraction of fossil fuel, but i will say this we still have to run our economy,economy, turn on the lights have to make sure that businesses operate. I want to do is much as i can as quickly as i can to make this Energy Transition but i could not responsibly say to you that i could automatically stop the source of fossil fuels right away without having a substitute in order to keep the economy going to keep people employed, to keep the lights on. But your larger. Really bears repeating. Climate change is an existential threat. Climate threat. Climate change is real. Everybody on the other side who says to you that [applause] they say you when you asked them about Climate Change i am not a scientist. Why dont you start listening to the scientists . [applause] and once you do then you we will be urgently trying to act in your own personal situation trying to be more energy efficient, figure out how to get alternatives available to your home for what your business, standing up against some of the really poorly thoughtout plans for some states to prevent further acceleration of solar and wind and enabling businesses and individuals to sell back to the good of all the things that can make a difference more quickly dispute as to her that moment. Ii think we have got to have a comprehensive and very well thought through anti Climate Change proclaiming your energy plan. Ii applaud the president has done without having the authority from the congress for what he is done with executive orders. Weorders. To continue to build on it. Hopefully we can get to the. Where we develop Something Like a consensus ofa consensus of our country which is what upsets me. The people who are against doing something on Climate Change have no alternative. Its just more of the same. Keep doing it. Keep doing keep doing what were doing now which is a losing policy we do need more people Andin Congress to understand and believe in the importance of addressing Climate Change. We need a president we will keep moving as far as possible on executive authority until we can get more legislation passed for the United States to set the example but i dont want to say i we will do something that i no would be difficult to do until we get everything moving in the right direction and the results and more people doing what there peace of the action might be. I want all of us to think through what we can do and if you get to the. Only entity extraction on public land and at least until we phase it out give more money that can go to fight Climate Change that we will be on the right track to get to the need to be. [applause] how are you . Just want to ask you. [inaudible] [inaudible question] am glad you asked that question because most people think the student loan problems just a young person problem and its not. Its not only the people like yourself went back to school to get additional education but a lot of parents and grandparents are cosigning and guaranteeing and taking out student loans, sometimes mortgaging their home in order to do so. This is a multigenerational problem. Problem. We have 1. 2 trillion in outstanding student debt held by 40 million americans this is a terrible drag on individuals a budget buster for so many individual families and its bad for the economy because a lot of the people who were weighted down can start a business, cant buy a house. Ive had young people tell me they cantcan afford to get married because of the student loan debt. Heres what i want to do, refinance existing debt with Interest Rate is too high compared to the real Interest Rate. [applause] and i we will be rolling out a specific plan for refinancing go with the payment that creates an additional budget strain on the government budget. We have to do it. I dont see any way out. The Interest Rates are too high to begin with, especially when they did not reflect the real to get to college to be more affordable. It has to be more affordable. And i also really appreciate what you said about how you have to defer payment because your paying a flat rate based on the 6 percent Interest Rate. So when i went to law school i had to borrow money. I didnt have money. My dad said i can help you go to college. If you go to law school your on your own. I worked, got a scholarship for but i borrowed money. I didnt on a plan that was available to me and my husband at the time my friend, boyfriend at the time borrow money to and we signed up for an income contingent repayment plan. In other words, i want to work of law school for the childrens defense fund. I did not goes on not go some big law firm. I think i made 14,000 a year. We paid back as a percentage of income so that we did not have to defer payments because we didnt have a high Interest Rate that was literally causing us to have to crowd out other obligations. I want to have more people with access to income contingency repaired programs. [applause] and i believe at a certain time particularly if you do the Public Service thing go back to the woman with the alltime challenges, if you become a social worker firefighter, police officer, teacher in the Public Service job, you ought to have your loan forgiven after a certain. Of time. [applause] and if you have another kind of employment you should look at how we get the Interest Rate down to get the planet the payment schedule down and lick of forgiveness eventually. Think of the amount of money. 1. 2 trillion. Think of what that would mean going into the economy. I think we can see that its a really good trade off if we make it. He we will be looking to see how we refinance and make college more affordable. [applause] here comes the microphone. Im sorry. Thank you for taking my question. Im a Public School teacher and i want to no what he stands on education is in the economy. The last 17 years ive been teaching i have seen Public Schools decline and it is a concern ofa concern of mine and i am sure many people here. What do you teach . [inaudible] what . First of all, thank you for teaching. Ii am concerned about what were doing your teachers and there students in the Education System because i do not believe that we are recognizing the challenges that kids bring the school these days that have to be addressed by a teacher in the classroom or the teacher in the Specialty Program like special ed. I believei believe strongly that we have got to do more to support what works in school. Andschool. And what works is recognizing what our job this is for so many teachers with so many kids. You know, i have a great friend, one of my friends from six. Utah for 35 or 40 years and retired a master all the difference between the beginning of your teaching career in the end of your teaching career . And she taught in a suburb of chicago. She said, a lot more kids with problems can be school that did not really have any support and i had a difficult time trying to help them. Number two,. Number two, i felt like every kid that i taught had a little Remote Control device and membrane and they were turning the off all the time because they were so used to quickness and fast responses. The slow, hard, sometimes boring work of learning something was just hard for them to concentrate on and grasp. Here is what i want to say. I want to support those triedandtrue Research Proven approaches that helped you as a teacher do the best job you can. Help your students to succeed to the best of there ability to help the school your in to be a success. And i here that we have gotten so focused on test taking to the exclusion of nearly Everything Else and really believe [applause] i believe in tests. They should be diagnostic. A great accomplishment for the United States. Gather evidence about how many children in our country were not in school because they have some kind of disability. We forget those days. I knocked on doors saying do you have children who are not in school . And i blind children deaf children. The federal government promised it would pay federal government has paid about 17 . But we have have done is to say we want you to educate all the children the other thing we didnt do is to recognize it is important this is something i worked on ever since i was in law school. Itit struck we as you are lawabiding citizens factory workers have to make sure kids go to school. Good habits for the right amount of discipline and love with the guidance they need to take advantage. 80 percent of your brain is physically formed by the advisory. Have been since she was a week old. So bill the other day enough with the reading talking, answering we do this i crazy and then we have other little kids who have a lot harder time. They may not have two parents in the home and maybe working like crazy. They may have difficulties with drugs or alcohol or other problems