reporter talks about the u.s. potentially banning the social media tiktok. join in the conversation live wednesday at 7:00. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ announcer: buckeye broadband supports cpan as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: next federal reserve

chairman jerome powell announcing the benchmark interest rate will remain unchanged due to inflation still remaining too high and says it is unlikely there will be a rate hike in the near future, saying the current rate is sufficiently restrictive for lower inflation to the federal reserve's 2% goal. the briefing is 50 minutes. chair powell: good afternoon. my colleagues and i remain squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the american people. the economy has made considerable progress toward our dual mandate objectives. inflation has eased substantially over the past year while the labor market has remained strong and that's very good news.

but inflation is still too high, further progress in bringing it down is not assured, and the path forward is uncertain. we are fully committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal. restoring price stability is essential to achieve a sustainably strong labor market that benefits all. today, the fomc decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged and to continue to reduce our securities holdings, though at a slower pace. our restrictive stance of monetary policy has been putting downward pressure on economic activity and inflation, and the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals have moved toward better balance over the past year. however, in recent months inflation has shown a lack of further progress toward our 2 percent objective, and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. i will have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments.

recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. although gdp growth moderated from 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter of last year to 1.6 percent in the first quarter, private domestic final purchases, which excludes inventory investment, government spending and net exports, and usually sends a clearer signal on underlying demand, was 3.1 percent in the first quarter, as strong as the second half of 2023. consumer spending has been robust over the past several quarters, even as high interest rates have weighed on housing and equipment investment. improving supply conditions have supported resilient demand and the strong performance of the u.s. economy over the past year. the labor market remains relatively tight, but supply and demand conditions have come into better balance. payroll job gains averaged 276

000 jobs per month in the first quarter, while the unemployment rate remains low at 3.8 percent. strong job creation over the past year has been accompanied by an increase in the supply of workers, reflecting increases in participation among individuals aged 25 to 54 years and a continued strong pace of immigration. nominal wage growth has eased over the past year and the jobs-to-workers gap has narrowed, but labor demand still exceeds the supply of available workers. inflation has eased notably over the past year but remains above our longer-run goal of 2 percent. total pce prices rose 2.7 percent over the 12 months ending in march, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core pce prices rose 2.8 percent. the inflation data received so far this year have been higher than expected. although some measures of short-term inflation expectations have increased in recent months, longer-term inflation expectations appear to

remain well anchored, as reflected in a broad range of surveys of households, businesses, and forecasters, as well as measures from financial markets. the fed's monetary policy actions are guided by our mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the american people. my colleagues and i are acutely aware that high inflation imposes significant hardship as it erodes purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent objective. the committee decided at today's meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent and to continue the process of significantly reducing our securities holdings, though at a slower pace. over the past year, as labor market tightness has eased and

inflation has declined, the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals have moved toward better balance. the economic outlook is uncertain, however, and we remain highly attentive to inflation risks. we have stated that we do not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range for the federal funds rate until we have gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent. so far this year, the data have not given us that greater confidence. in particular, and as i noted earlier, readings on inflation have come in above expectations. it is likely that gaining such greater confidence will take longer than previously expected. we are prepared to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for as long as appropriate. we are also prepared to respond to an unexpected weakening in the labor market. we know that reducing policy restraint too soon or too much could result in a reversal of the progress we have seen on inflation. at the same time, reducing policy restraint too late or too

little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. in considering any adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. policy is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate. we will continue to make decisions meeting by meeting. turning to our balance sheet, the committee decided at today's meeting to slow the pace of decline in our securities holdings, consistent with the plans we released previously. specifically, the cap on treasury redemptions will be lowered from the current $60 billion per month to $25 billion per month as of june 1. consistent with the committee's intention to hold primarily treasury securities in the longer run, we are leaving the cap on agency securities unchanged per month and will reinvest any proceeds in excess of this cap in treasury

securities. with principal payments on agency securities currently running at about $15 billion per month, total portfolio runoff will amount to roughly $40 billion per month. the decision to slow the pace of runoff does not mean that our balance sheet will ultimately shrink by less than it would otherwise, but rather allows us to approach its ultimate level more gradually. in particular, slowing the pace of runoff will help ensure a smooth transition, reducing the possibility that money markets experience stress, and thereby facilitating the ongoing decline in our securities holdings that are consistent with reaching the appropriate level of ample reserves. we remain committed to bringing inflation back down to our 2 percent goal and to keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored. restoring price stability is essential to set the stage for achieving maximum employment and stable prices over the longer run. to conclude, we understand that our actions affect communities, families, and businesses across

the country. everything we do is in service to our public mission. we at the fed will do everything we can to achieve our maximum employment and price stability goals. thank you. and i look forward to your questions. chair powell: -- reporter: do you consider the current policy rate, you are confident it is sufficiently restrictive to get it back to 2%? chair powell: the evidence shows pretty clearly that policy is restrictive and weighing on demand. you can start with the labor market. so demand is still strong, the demand side of the labor market in particular, but it is cooled from its level five years ago, and you see that evidence of the job numbers.

it is higher than pre-pandemic but has been coming down following reports. that is demand cooling. the same is true of quits and high rates. we look at surveys of workers and businesses and ask workers are jobs 24 and as for businesses are workers plentiful? those numbers have come back down to pre-pandemic levels. you also see in interest sensitive spending like housing and investment higher interest rates are weighing other's activities, so i do think it is clear that policy is restrictive. reporter: sufficiently restrictive, i guess? chair powell: we believe it is restrictive and overtime will be sufficiently restrictive. reporter: so the follow-up, if it continues running roughly

sideways, the job market stays reasonably strong, unemployment low, and expectations are anchored and maintained, would you disrupt that for the last half point on pce? chair powell: i do not want to get into complicated hypotheticals, but we are committed to maintaining our current restrictive stance on policy for as long as is appropriate, and we will do that. reporter: thank you for the question. i wonder, obviously michelle bowman has been saying there is a risk that rates may need to increase further. i wonder if you see that as a risk as well, and if so what change in conditions would merit raising rates at this point? chair powell: i think it is unlikely that the next policy

rate move will be a hike. i think it is unlikely. our policy focus is what i just mentioned, which is how long to keep policy restrictive. u.s. what it would take? we would need to see sufficient evidence that are policy sense is not sufficiently restrictive. that is not what i think we are seeing but something like that is what it would take. we would look at the totality of the data and answer that question. that would include inflation expectations in all of the other data too. reporter: [indiscernible] chair powell: i think, again, what i'm saying is if we were to come to the conclusion policy were not tight enough to achieve that, so it would be the totality of all the things we were looking at. it could be a combination of things, but if we reach that conclusion we do not see evidence supporting the conclusion that is what it would take for us to take that step.

reporter: thank you, associated press. you did not mention the guide that rates are at a peak of the cycle and did not mention the idea that it might be appropriate to cut rates later this year as you have a previous press conferences, so has the fed dropped its easing bias? where do you stand on that? chair powell: let me address cuts. obviously our decisions are going to depend upon the incoming data, and how the outlook is evolving and the balance of risks as always, and we will look at the totality of data. we think policy is well-positioned to address different paths that the economy might take, and we have said we do not think it would be appropriate to dial back our restrictive policy stance until we gain greater confidence that inflation is moving down sustainably toward 2%. so for example, that me take a

pass. if we had a path that inflation proves more persistent than expected in the labor market remains strong, but inflation is moving sideways, that would be a case in which it could be appropriate to hold off on rate cuts. i think there are also other paths that the economy would take that would cause us to consider rate cuts, and two of those paths would be that we do gain greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably down toward 2% and another path could be unexpected weakening in the labor market, so those are paths in which you could see as cutting rates, so we will depend upon the data. in terms of peak rates, i think really it is the same question. i think the data will have to answer that question for us. reporter: could you just follow on the path where you might not cut, you mentioned inflation

resistant. would that be the key data in making that decision or could you explain a bit more on that? chair powell: again, we have set ourselves a test for us to begin to reduce policy restriction, we would want to be confident that inflation is moving sustainably down to 2%, and one of the things we would be looking at is the performance of inflation and also inflation expectations, the whole story, but clearly incoming inflation did it would be at the heart of that decision. reporter: wall street journal. chair powell, to what extent has the easing and financial condition since november contributed to the re-acceleration of growth, and do you know expect a period of

greater financial conditions will be necessary? chair powell: it is hard to know that. we will look at from down the road and looked back and understand it better. let's look at growth. really what do we have seen so far this year in the first quarter is growth coming in about consistent with where it was last year. i know gdp came in lower, but you do not see an acceleration and growth. financial conditions loosened in december and that caused it uptick in activity and that caused inflation. you do not see that happening. what you see as economic activity at a level roughly the same as last year, so what is causing inflation -- we will have a better sense of that overtime. i do not know if there is an obvious connection in terms of easing of financial conditions. rates are slightly higher now and have been for some than they

were before the december meeting , and they are higher and that is tighter financial conditions, and that is appropriate given what inflation is done in the first quarter. reporter: you have said in the past stronger growth would not necessarily preclude rate cuts. with continued strength change your view about appropriate sense of policy if it was accompanied by signs that wage growth was really accelerating? chair powell: i want to be careful that we do not target wage growth and the labor market. remember what we saw last year, wage growth, a strong labor market and historical declines and inflation. there is the underlining -- unwinding of supply-side distortions and also monetary policy, so i would not rule out that something like that can continue. i would not give up on this

point further on the supply side either because we do see the company still report that there are supply-side issues they are facing, and even when supply-side issues are solved it should take time to impact economic conditions, so i do not like to say that either growth or a strong labor market in and of itself would automatically create problems and inflation because it did not do that last year. we do not target wages. we target price inflation. of course, we like everyone else like to see high wages, but we also want to see them not eaten up by high inflation, and that is what we are trying to do is to cool the economy and work with what is happening on the supply side to bring the economy

back to 2% inflation, and part of that will probably be having wage increases moving down toward levels incrementally that are more stable. reporter: rachel siegel, washington post. you talked about needing time to get a more confidence that inflation is seceded we moving back down to 2%. it is may now, do you have time to cut three times just given the calendar? chair powell: i am not thinking of it that way. what i've said is we need to be more confident, and my colleagues and i today said we did not see progress in the first quarter, and i have said that it appears then that it is going to take longer for us to reach that point of confidence. i do not know how long it will take. i can just say that when we get back confidence, then the rate cuts will be in the scope.

i do not know exactly when that would be. reporter: are there any signs you can look back on the right now that suggested something more worrying than expected bumping this? chair powell: you know, not really. so i thought it was appropriate to reserve judgment until we had the full orders data -- fourth-quarter's data. we see strong economic activity, a strong labor market. c3 inflation readings, so you were at a point there where you should take some signal. we did not like to react to one or two months data, but this is a full quarter. the signal we are taking as it will likely take longer for us to gain confidence that we are on a sustainable path.

that is the signal we are taking. reporter: if i could follow up on that, what particular areas were temporary blips and inflation data and what is the dynamic by which you expect them to work out in the coming months and quarters? chair powell: we have put the thing under a microscope. nothing will come out of that will change the view that in fact we did not gain confidence and it will take longer to get that confidence. you know the story, what has happened since december is you have seen higher good inflation than expected and non-services higher than expected, and those two are working together to be higher than we thought. i think my expectation is that

we will over the course of this year see inflation to move back down. that is my forecast. i think my confidence and that is lower than it was because of the dated that we have seen. we also continue to expect and i continue to expect that housing services inflation given where markets are will show up in a measured housing services inflation over time. it looks like there are substantial lags between when the work markets rates turned up and when it shows up for existing tenants. reporter: is there a contradiction in the idea that your reducing quantitative tightening, which is sort of an easing, while you were holding rates at a level?

chair powell: the active tool of monetary policy as interest rates, and this is a blend we have long had a place to slow, really not in order to provide accommodation to the economy, but to be less restrictive to the economy. it really is to ensure the process of shrinking the balance you down to where we want to get it is a smooth one and does not wind up with the financial market turmoil the way that it did the last time we did this and the only time we have ever done this. reporter: bloomberg, two questions. simple one. given the run-up of data since march, as the probability in your mind of no cuts of no cuts this year increased or stayed the same? that is the first question. second question, chair powell,

you joined the board in 2012, and i am sure you remember what the jobless recovery was like, lawyers, accountants, all kinds of highly qualified people who could not get jobs. i wonder if there is an argument there for being more patient with inflation here. we had strong productivity growth that is helping wages go up. we have good employment, so it seems to me there was a lot of hysteria about inflation. i agree that nobody likes said, but is there an argument for being patient and working with the economic cycle to get it done over time? chair powell: on your first question i do not have a probability assessment for you, but all that i can say is, you know, we said we do not think it would be appropriate to cut until we were more confident that inflation it was moving sustainably down to 2%.

confidence and that did not increase in the first quarter, and in fact what really happened was we came to the view that it would take longer to get to that confidence. i think the economy has been very hard for forecasters broadly to predict its path, but there are paths to not cutting and there are paths to cutting. it will depend upon the data. in terms of the employment and date, to your point, if you go back a couple of years, our sort of framework document says that when you look at the two men date goals, and if one of them is further away from gold than the other, then you focus on that one. how far it is from the goal? and that was clearly inflation, so our focus was very much on inflation, and this is what we refer to in the statement. as inflation has come down now

to below 3% on a 12 month basis, we are now focusing the other goal, the employment goal now comes back into focus, so we are focusing on it, and that is how we think about that. reporter: financial times, thank you so much for the opportunities. just to go back to the answer before and the previous one, it seems to suggest you think the likely effect of inflation is one that is going to allow you to -- a situation where rates are lower at the end of the earth than they are right now. if you can confirm whether or not that is the correct reading, and the q1 gdp printed, we start mentioning the term stagflation

with respect to the u.s. economy. do you or anyone else think this is a risk? chair powell: i am not dealing really and likelihoods. there are paths the economy could take that would involve cuts in their paths that would not. i do not have great confidence in which of those paths. my personal forecasters we will begin to see further progress on inflation this year. i do not know that it will be sufficient. i do not know that it will not. we will have to let the data lead us on that. in terms of your second question, stagflation, i guess i would say i was around four stagflation, and it was 10% unemployment, it was high single digit inflation. right now we have -- and very slow growth. it right now we have 3% growth, which is pretty solid growth i would say by any measure and

inflation running under 3%, so i do not really understand where that is coming from. in addition, i would say most forecasters including our forecasting was that last year's level of growth was really high, 3.4% in the fourth quarter and probably not going to be sustained and would come down, but that would be our forecast. that would not be stagflation. that would still be to a healthy level of growth. we will return inflation to 2%, so i do not see the stag or the flation actually. reporter: michael keith, bloomberg. the vice chair of the fomc said he is willing to consider the idea of the potential growth has moved up. you share that view, and with

that implied that may be policy is not tight enough? chair powell: so i think i would take that question this way. we saw a year of very high productivity growth in 2023, and we sought negative productivity growth in 2022, so i think it is hard to draw from the data. there are two questions. one is will productivity run consistently above its longer-term trend? i do not think we know that. in terms of potential output, that is a separate question. we have had what amounts to a significant increase in the potential output of the economy that is not about productivity. it was about having more labor about the -- both for participation enter immigration. we are getting our arms around

what that means for potential output this year and next year and last year, so in that case i think you really do have a significant increase in potential output, but you've also got -- you have got more supply, these people come in, they were, they spend, so you will also got demand. it may be you get more supply than demand at the beginning, but ultimately it should be neither inflationary nor does inflationary -- disinflationary during other period. reporter: you said at this point you are not considering rate increases. does that imply you were more worried about causing the economy to slow too much than you are about inflation taking off again? chair powell: i think we believe our policy stands is in a good place and is an appropriate place.

we think it is appropriately restrictive. you see it in the labor market, inflation since to the spending when demand has come a lot -- w own a lot. the supply side things are more on the supply side, so that is how we think about it. reporter: edward lawrence, foxbusiness. gdp growth is 2%, and claimant is 4%. it feels like a steady space, so if the data remains the same that you were seeing, it stands to reason you would need a rake i -- rate hike to get from 3% to 2%. are you satisfied with 3% inflation for the rest of the year? chair powell: of course, we are not satisfied with 3% inflation.

3% cannot be in a sentence was satisfied, so we will return inflation down to 2% and to be think our policy stance is appropriate to do that. if we were to conclude the policy is not sufficiently restricted to bring inflation sister to be down to 2%, then that would be what it would take for us to increase rates. we do not see evidence of that. reporter: was there discussion about our rate hike is all? chair powell: the policy focus has been on what to do about holding the current level of restriction. reporter: i went to follow-up on the 3%. is there a timeframe that would trigger a rate hike? chair powell: you cannot look to any rule. these will be judgment calls. clearly restrictive monetary policy needs what time to do his

job. that is clear based on what we are seeing how long that will take an outpatient we should be. it will depend upon the totality of the data and how the outlook evolves. reporter: victoria, politico. you've talked about your commitment to being apolitical and nonpartisan. it given that it is an election year is the bar for a change close to an election, and is there is significant economic difference between starting to cut in september versus a december? chair powell: we will always do what we think the right thing for the economy is when we come to the consensus view. that is a record. that is what we do. it is hard enough to get the economics right here. these are difficult things. if we route to take on another set of factors and use that as a

new filter, it would reduce the likelihood that we get the economics right. we are at peace over. we know we will do what we think is the right thing when we think it is the right thing, and we will all do that, and that is how everyone around here thanks. i cannot say it enough that we just do not go down that road. if we go down that road, where do you stop? we are on the road where we are serving all of the american people and making decisions about the data and how those data affect the balance of outlook and risk. reporter: is there a significant difference between whether you start in september or say december? chair powell: there is a significant difference between an institution that takes into account all sorts of political events and one that does not. we just do not do that. go back and read the transcripts.

this is my fourth presidential election. read all of the transcripts and see if anybody mentions impending elections. if we start down that road, i do not know how you stop, so -- reporter: thank you. question about the labor market, you have mentioned a few times the labor market is normalizing. one thing that has not normalized his wage growth, which is stronger than before the pandemic. i wonder if you could sure your analysis of why that is happening? chair powell: i think if you go back to where wages peaked, a couple or three years ago, essentially all wage measures have come down substantially to that, but they are not down to where they were before the pandemic. they are still roughly one percentage point higher, and we

have seen consistent progress. the reading from tuesday was expected to have come down, and essentially was flat year-over-year to i think roughly. that part of it is bumpy, and again, we do not target wage increases, but in the longer run if you have wage increases running higher than productivity would warrant, and there will be inflationary pressures. employers will raise prices over time if that is the case. it we have seen progress. it has been inconsistent, but we have seen a substantial decline overall, but we have a ways to go on the. -- that. reporter: [indiscernible]

you mentioned consumers, and consumers are feeling the weight of interest rates. mortgage rates are up, car loans, people looking to borrow. what would you say to them? chair powell: the people that it hurts particularly in lower income brackets is inflation. if you are persons living paycheck-to-paycheck, and the fundamentals of life go up in price, you are in trouble right away, so with those people the mind in particular, what we are doing is using our tools to bring down inflation. it will take time, but we will succeed and bring inflation back down to 2%, and people will not have to worry about it again. we know it is painful and

inconvenient, but the dividends will be very large and everyone was sure those dividends, and we have made quite a lot of progress. i think headline core pce peaked at 5.8. headline p 7.1 and now is that 2.7. reporter: our current interest rates doing that much to fight inflation right now for those consumers? chair powell: yes, i think that restrictive monetary policy is doing what it is supposed to do, but it is also in this case are usually working alongside and with the supply-side. what was different this time is that a big part of the source of the inflation and the reason why we are having this conversation is that we had the supply side with shortages and bottlenecks and that kind of thing, and this was to do with the shutting down

the reopening of the economy and other things that really raise demand, so many factors did that. now you see those two things working together. the reversal of the supply and demand distortions from the pandemic at a response to it along with a monetary policy. those two things are working to bring 10 inflation, and we have made a lot of progress. we have a ways to go, we have got work left to do, but we are not looking at the high inflation rates we were seeing two years ago. reporter: courtney, axios, thank you for taking out questions. i wanted to follow-up on something mentioned earlier how inflation, there has been this long disinflation expected. how do you expend the legs between the private sector and the government data, and how

confident are you that rents will be helpful on the inflation front in the coming months? chair powell: essentially there are a number of places in the economy where there are leg structures built into the inflation process, and housing is one of them. when a new person goes to rent an apartment, that is called market rent, and you can see market rents are really going up at all. the inflation in those has been very low, but before that they were incredibly high. they led the high part, so what happens is those market rents take years actually to get all the way intorents for tenants who are rolling over their leases. landlords tend not to charge as much of an increase to a rollover candidate for whatever

reason, and what that does is it builds up he realized portion of increases. it is complicated, but the story is it just takes some time for that to get in. i am confident as long as market rents remain low this will show up in a measured inflation assuming that market rents to remain low. what will be the exact timing of it? we now think significantly longer than we thought at the beginning, so am confident that it will come, but not so confident in the timing of it, but yes, i expect that this will happen. reporter: [indiscernible] reporter: thank you, for taking our questions. it seems over the past three or four years economies and central banks have been a on the same trajectory using during the pandemic, fighting inflation with restrictive policy. it feels like that may be ending

in 2024 basin economic data from europe and the u.s. what risks does a period of more sustainable trajectories present for the fomc? chair powell: i think that may happen. we all serve domestic mandates, so i think the difference between the united states under other countries that are now considering rate cuts is they are just not having the kind of growth that we are having. there were inflation is performing about like ours or may be better, but they are not experiencing the kind of growth that we are experiencing, so we actually have the luxury of having strong labor market, low unemployment, high job creation and all of that, and we can be patient and will be careful and cautious as we approach the decision to cut rates. in terms of the implications, i think market see it coming.

it is priced in noun -- in now, so markets and economies can adapt to it. in emerging markets we have not seen the kind of turmoil that was more frequent 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and that is partly because emerging market countries have much more credibility on inflation, so they are navigating it pretty well this time. reporter: thank you, jennifer. you backed away from the notion that the economy would need to encounter pain for inflation to come back down, but given inflation -- sticky inflation data in the last quarter, is softening in the labor market and economy likely needed to

bring inflation back down? chair powell: you were right, most people thought there would have to be probably a significant dislocation somewhere in the economy, perhaps the labor market to get inflation all the way down from the very high level it was at. that did not happen. that is a tremendous result. if you look at the dynamics that enabled that, it was that so much of the game was from the unwinding of things i've distortions in the economy, supplies problems and also some demand issues as well. the unwinding and help the economy. i am not giving up. i think it is possible that those horses will still work to help bring inflation down.

we cannot be guaranteed that is true. we are trying to use our tools in a way to keep the labor market strong in the economy strong, but also helps to bring inflation back down to 2% sustainably. we will bring inflation back down to 2% sustainably, and we hope we can do it without significant dislocation in the labor market then elsewhere. reporter: in terms of cutting, is that if there will be said the job market that could be a reason to cut rates, so if the unemployment rate were to take above 4% but inflation not back down to the 2% target, how would you look at that? with the unemployment rate popping back above 4%, with that catch your attention? chair powell: i will not define exactly what i would mean that, but it would have to be meaningful and lead us to think the labor market was significantly weakening.

it would be a broader thing that would suggest that it would be appropriate to consider cutting. i think whether you decide to cut it will depend on all of the facts and circumstances, not just that one. reporter: thank you for taking the question. kyle campbell, you said changes are needed for the end proposal and reproposal is on the table. a few had more time to sit with the public commentary, process that incident with the options or whether it will be necessary, and do you have a timeline in mind for when and if some sort of movement will be made on that front, either reproposal or move to finalize. chair powell: the fed is committed to completing this

process in carrying out the endgame in a way that is favorable -- faithful and comfortable. we have not made any decisions on policy or unprocessed at all. no decisions have been made. i will say again if we conclude it is appropriate we will not hesitate to insist on that. reporter: do you need to resolve issues with the capitol proposal in order to advance other parts of the regulatory agenda, or do you expect to continue to make progress on those other agenda items? chair powell: there is no mechanical rule, but the process above for the most important rule and is occupying us at this point in terms of what we are moving ahead with. reporter: thank you, mark with

bank rate. what can you tell us about the approach you take and your role in terms of trying to achieve consensus? would you recently identified as a priority while allowing for a range of views in dissent? we do not see dissent among statements even when more spirited discussions are noted after the fact. how do you avoid group think and a higher risk of a policy mistake? >> you will listen to my 18 colleagues on the fomc, and you will see we do not lack for diversity of voices or perspectives. and it is one of the great aspects of the federal reserve system. we have 12 reserve banks around the country where they have their own academic staff. it not the people at the board. each reserve bank has its own

culture around monetary policy that guarantees the diversity of perspective, so i think that the perspectives are very diverse. in terms of dissents, we have dissents, and thoughtful dissent is a good thing. if someone really makes you think, but all i can say this from my standpoint is our listen carefully to people and try to incorporate the thinking or do everything i can to incorporate their thinking into what we are doing, and i think many people if they feel that is happening, for most people most of the time that will be enough. it is not frowned upon or against the rule or illegal or anything like that. i think we are a very diverse group at a more diverse than it is -- then it was too many

dimensions. a gender and demographic ways, but we have people who are not economists. we have people from business and law and academia, so i think you have made good diverse perspective. all of us read stories about the lack of diversity and look around the room and say i do not understand what they are talking about, but i get the question though. thank you very much. [laughter] announcer: on thursday transportation sectary people to justifies on the president's

2025 much of st it is expected to face questions on proposed federal funding to rebuild baltimore's francis ott key bridge which collapsed in march after being struck by ahip. watch the ring with a 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. ♪ announcer: explore a wonderful array of mother's day gifts at cspanshop.org. home decor, apparel, and accessories. every purchase you make goes toward supporting a nonprofit operations. star jumping out by scanning the code on the right or visiting us online at c-spanshop.org. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox.