[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MONETARY POLICY AND THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 18, 2012 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 112-145 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76-116 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman Ranking Member PETER T. KING, New York MAXINE WATERS, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois RON PAUL, Texas NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California GARY G. MILLER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JOHN CAMPBELL, California JOE BACA, California MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan BRAD MILLER, North Carolina KEVIN McCARTHY, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico AL GREEN, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin Pennsylvania KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri JOE DONNELLY, Indiana BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDRE CARSON, Indiana SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York GARY C. PETERS, Michigan JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware ROBERT HURT, Virginia ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York FRANCISCO ``QUICO'' CANSECO, Texas STEVE STIVERS, Ohio STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee James H. Clinger, Staff Director and Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: July 18, 2012................................................ 1 Appendix: July 18, 2012................................................ 51 WITNESSES Wednesday, July 18, 2012 Bernanke, Hon. Ben S., Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System......................................... 7 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Paul, Hon. Ron............................................... 52 Bernanke, Hon. Ben S......................................... 54 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Schweikert, Hon. David: U.S. Senate letter regarding PCCRAs.......................... 62 Bernanke, Hon. Ben S.: Monetary Policy Report to the Congress, dated July 17, 2012.. 66 Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Cleaver.................................................... 126 Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Hurt....................................................... 127 Written responses to questions submitted by Representative McCarthy................................................... 130 Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Paul....................................................... 132 Written responses to questions submitted by Representative Schweikert................................................. 134 MONETARY POLICY AND THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY ---------- Wednesday, July 18, 2012 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Spencer Bachus [chairman of the committee] presiding. Members present: Representatives Bachus, Hensarling, Royce, Lucas, Paul, Manzullo, Jones, Biggert, Miller of California, Garrett, Neugebauer, McHenry, Campbell, Pearce, Posey, Fitzpatrick, Westmoreland, Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Duffy, Hayworth, Renacci, Hurt, Dold, Schweikert, Grimm, Canseco, Fincher; Frank, Waters, Maloney, Watt, Sherman, Capuano, Clay, Lynch, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, Green, Perlmutter, Donnelly, Carson, Himes, and Carney. Chairman Bachus. This hearing will come to order. We meet today to receive the semi-annual report to Congress by the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on monetary policy and the state of the economy. Pursuant to committee rule 3(f)(2), opening statements are limited to the chair and ranking minority member of the full committee, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, for a period of 8 minutes on each side. Without objection, all Members' written statements will be made a part of the record. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of making an opening statement. We are honored to have Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke before us today. Thank you, Chairman Bernanke, for appearing before our committee once again, and for your dedicated service to the country. As we meet this morning, we continue to find our Nation on a path that is fiscally and economically unsustainable. And some in the Senate, Chairman Bernanke, apparently believe that only you can do something about it. Since the economy is bad and unemployment is high, one of those Senators pointedly told you yesterday that you have to get to work. That leads to an important question: Who is ultimately responsible for the state of our economy? We once had a President who had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said, ``The buck stops here.'' I will amend that to say the buck stops with the President of the United States and with Congress, who are the elected leaders of this country. The President and Congress are the ones who have created America's spending-driven debt crisis by hitting the gas when what was needed was someone stomping on the brakes, and more importantly, the need for reform of our entitlements. Some in the Senate may want to duck responsibility, but the truth is the Federal Reserve cannot rescue Americans from the consequences of failed economic and regulatory policies passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Chairman of the Fed cannot save the economy when those elected leaders decide they are prepared to send our country over a fiscal cliff, as one of those elected leaders in the Senate declared earlier this week. Chairman Bernanke has warned Congress and the Administration time and time again that without action, growing deficits and the debt will erode our prosperity and leave the next generation of Americans with less opportunity. To avoid this fate, we must start taking action now to tame Washington's appetite for spending, and more importantly, as Chairman Bernanke has said, tackle the difficult but necessary long-term restructuring of our entitlements. The House, to its credit, has had the courage, in this hyperpartisan attack atmosphere, to begin the long-term process; the Senate has not. So I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Senate that it is time for them to go to work. Our economy is hobbled not only by our deficits and debt, but also by the cumulative weight of Washington overregulation. This committee hears constantly from private sector witnesses who tell us the regulatory burdens being placed on them are, as one small town banker witness said, slowly but surely strangling their ability to do business and create jobs. This is not to argue we don't need regulations. Reasonable regulations provide clear rules of the road for businesses and protect consumers. Businesses need certainty and to know what to expect. They don't have it under the present regulatory regime. Unfortunately, job creators will tell you that reasonable and clear rules aren't what they are getting from Washington right now. Instead, they tell us the regulators do not coordinate their actions, and the result is businesses are subjected to confusing and often conflicting rules. While many in Washington attack Wall Street and big corporations when they call for more regulation, the reality is the burden of Federal red tape falls disproportionately on small businesses and the small community- based financial institutions that lend to them. As the Small Business Administration reports, it costs small businesses 36 percent more per employee to comply with Federal rules than large companies. This has driven a consolidation which is evident in our financial services industry. And because small businesses are the engine of job growth in our economy, we can hardly blame the Fed when policies passed by this Congress and signed by the President result in regulatory overkill that makes it harder for small businesses to thrive and hire. Instead of more regulations, Congress and the President need to do more to eliminate the government roadblocks that stand in the way of small business success and job creation. The President recently said that entrepreneurs and small businesses aren't successful on their own; they can succeed only with the help of the government. That is akin to saying that Apple Computer is a success because of the person who built Steve Jobs's garage. Small businesses succeed in this country in spite of the government, not because of it. Chairman Bernanke, I know all of us look forward to your testimony and the discussion that we will have today. Again, I thank you for being here, and I yield to the ranking member. Mr. Frank. I appreciate that. I am always struck by the ability of my Republican colleagues to engage in a kind of duality of the mind with regard to Federal spending. I listened to the chairman talk about the need to rein in spending, and note that we are going to be given a bill today to vote on that will increase military spending beyond what the President has asked for. There is this curious notion that somehow military spending is very different from all other government spending. People who tell us how government spending never creates a job become the most militant Keynesians when it comes to military spending, even though a very large percentage of it is spent overseas. We will be asked today to continue a subsidy to NATO so that the wealthy nations of western Europe can continue to spend very little on their military, so that they in turn can have lower retirement ages than we have here in America, and we will then be telling Americans that we have to cut back on their Social Security and their Medicare. Note when my Republican friends say ``entitlement,'' they mean Social Security and Medicare. And I am proud of those. While we can make them more efficient, I am not prepared to maintain more and more military spending at their expense. Next, I want to comment on what Chairman Bernanke has told us. And I want to begin by noting that when people look for bipartisanship, it is striking the degree of partisan criticism I have heard from Republicans of Chairman Bernanke, who is single-handedly the most bipartisan institution in Washington. He was appointed 3 times to important economic positions by George Bush: first, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2002; second, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 2005; and third, to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve. It does appear that when Mr. Bush had an important economic appointment to make, he said, get me the usual suspect, which was Chairman Bernanke. And I think that is very important, because he is genuinely bipartisan, and therefore, I look at his analysis of the economy. And it has very little do with the very partisan caricature we hear. I read the economic report, the Monetary Policy Report; there is a basic statement that our economy has been recovering from the terrible crisis brought about by the complete absence of regulation and consequent, unchecked irresponsibility by some financial institutions, obviously not all, and we are told that it is slowed down by a number of factors. The most important, according to the way it is presented here, is what is going on in Europe. Nothing that we have done is responsible. In fact, the Federal Reserve has tried to be helpful in alleviating the situation in Europe, drawing again partisan criticism from the Republicans for their cooperation with the ECB to ease that situation to our benefit. We are told that there is a problem because there is uncertainty about the tax and spending policies. But those are wholly bipartisan. By the way, I voted against the bill that included the sequester. I think we can substantially cut military spending, but sequestering is a stupid way to do it. A better way to do it would be to tell western Europe they are on their own, to stop figuring that we have to win a thermonuclear war with a now nonexistent Soviet Union. But the fact is that the uncertainty that Chairman Bernanke talks about, our bipartisan Republican and Democratic-appointed top economic official, is an uncertainty that is bipartisan and has nothing to do with regulation. And I listen to this complaint about regulatory uncertainty. Apparently, maybe there is a part of the Monetary Policy Report I haven't read. I don't see a word in here that says that financial reform or other forms of regulation are part of the problem. It does talk about some other things that are part of the problem, for example, the cutback in hiring and construction by State and local governments. And that is a direct preference of the Republicans. We began in 2009, when we had a President and a Democratic Congress, to provide funding so State and local governments could continue to be economically active in the face of the crisis that had hit them. We were told by our Republican colleagues that was government spending; it didn't create jobs. Apparently, you couldn't shoot anybody with it. And if you can't shoot anybody with something, or if you can't send it to an overseas base, it has no job creation impact, so they only do it for the military. But in fact, if State and local governments had not been forced to cut back, unemployment would now be below 8 percent, even if they had been able to hold even. We have lost about 15 percent of the jobs created in the private sector by cutbacks in the public sector. So again, as I read this, there are discussions of what is causing a recovery slower than we want it to be. None of them have to do with what my Republican colleagues have said. And again, this comes from Chairman Bernanke, who was, as I said, was appointed 3 times to important economic positions by George Bush, a man with whom I sometimes disagree, but whose integrity and intellectual honesty ought to be unquestioned. Unfortunately, in this hyperpartisan atmosphere, to quote the chairman, it sometimes isn't. Chairman Bachus. I thank the ranking member. Before recognizing Dr. Paul for his statement, I want to note that this may be his last committee meeting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Throughout his time in office, Dr. Paul has been a consistent and strong advocate for sound monetary policy. And his leadership on the committee, especially during these hearings when we have had the Federal Reserve Chairman up here before us, have certainly made the hearings more interesting and provided several memorable YouTube moments. Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent just to say that having served for a long time with Ron Paul, with whom I agree on on a number of issues, I am very pleased that I was able to serve one term with him as the chairman, because there were times during our joint service when despite his seniority, I thought he would never get to it. So I am glad that he finally achieved that chairmanship that he should have had long ago. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. And let me note that my statement didn't talk about Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to debate it, I know you talked about the Administration and Obama, and I think most people know what party he is in. Chairman Bachus. All right. Thank you. For the record, we do know that. Thank you. Dr. Paul for 3 minutes. Dr. Paul. Thank you, Chairman Bachus. And welcome, Chairman Bernanke. I appreciate your comments, Chairman Bernanke and Ranking Member Frank. I am delighted to be here today, but I just want to refresh a few people's memories. I was first elected to Congress in 1976 in April in a special election. And the biggest bill on the docket at that time was the revamping of the IMF. There was a major crisis going on from the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement, and they had to rewrite the laws. They wanted to conform the laws with what they had been doing for 5 years. And that was a major piece of legislation. But it was only a consequence of what was predicted in 1945, because when 1945 established that Bretton Woods, it was predicted by the free market economists that it wouldn't work, that it would fail. This whole idea that they could regulate exchange rates and deal with the balance of payments totally failed. And so, they had to come up with something new. And 1971-1976 is that transition period. Those same economists at that time said this was an unworkable system, too, and it would lead to a major crisis of too much debt, too much malinvestment. It would be worldwide. It would be worse than anything because it would be based on the fiat dollar globally, and many of the problems we have domestically would be worldwide. That certainly has been confirmed with the crisis that we are in, and it has not been resolved yet. We are still floundering around, and we still have a long way to go. I have, over the years, obviously been critical of what goes on in monetary policy, but it hasn't been so much of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, whether it was Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan or the current Chairman; it has always been the system. I think they have a job that they can't do because it is an unmanageable job. And it is a fallacy, it is a flawed system, and therefore we shouldn't expect good results. And generally, we are not getting results. Policies never change. We say the same thing. No matter what the crisis is, we still do more of the same. If spending and debt was the problem, spending more and in greater debt and have the Fed just buy more debt doesn't seem to help at all. And here we are doing the same thing. We don't talk about the work ethic and true productions and true savings and why this excessive debt is so bad for us. We talk about solving a worldwide problem of insolvency of nations, including our own, by just printing money, and creating credit. The Fed, in the last 4 years, tripled the monetary base, and it has $1 trillion more money sitting there, and the banks are sitting with trillions of dollars. Just the creation of money doesn't restore the confidence that is necessary. And until we get to the bottom of this and restore the confidence, I don't think we are going to see economic growth. This whole idea that you have the job of managing money, and we can't even define the dollar--nobody has a definition of the dollar; it is an impossible task. So I have hoped in the past to try to contribute to the discussion on monetary policy and the business cycle and why it benefits the rich over the poor, and so far, my views have not prevailed. But I have appreciated the opportunity, and I appreciate this opportunity to have served on the Financial Services Committee. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Paul. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank Chairman Bernanke for appearing at today's hearing. Let me also publicly thank our subcommittee chairman, Dr. Paul, for his honorable service in Congress and to his country. As you know, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act charges the Federal Reserve with a dual mandate: to maintain stable prices, which I understand we have positive news about; and full employment, which is what I would like to talk about today. Full employment means everyone. Currently, the national average unemployment rate is 8.2 percent. Chairman Bernanke, this has decreased compared with when you were here a year ago, when it was 9.1 percent. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate for African Americans is much higher. For African-American males, it is a too-high 14.2 percent. 12.7 million people in the United States want to work, but cannot find a job. That is down from last year's 14 million. But too many of those 12.7 million are African Americans. Nonfarm payroll employment is continuing to rise by 80,000, but too few of those who are getting jobs are African Americans. Average hourly earnings for all private nonfarm employees rose to $23.50 over the past 12 months, but not for enough African Americans. Consumer food prices have risen slightly, but consumer price inflation has decreased overall, and energy prices have decreased too. But if you are out of work, you cannot pay your electric bill even if it is slightly lower than it was last year. The disparity in the unemployment between the national average and African Americans is unacceptable, and we have to do more to solve it. Mr. Chairman, it is important to put everyone back to work in this country. But as we look at policies and strategies that will continue the improvement in job numbers, be aware that we as a Nation are only as strong as the weakest link. So let's make sure we don't leave behind a large and important part of our communities. And I look forward to your statement and continuing this important and ongoing discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Before I recognize Chairman Bernanke, let me say that because the Financial Stability Oversight Council on which the Chairman serves is meeting today at 1 p.m., the Chair will excuse Chairman Bernanke at 12:45, so that he can fulfill his important obligation with that Council. The Chair also announces that in order to accommodate questioning of Chairman Bernanke by as many Members as possible, we will strictly enforce the 5-minute rule. Members who wait until the final seconds of their 5 minutes to begin asking their questions to the Chairman should be advised that they will be asked to suspend when the red light comes on so that we can allow all Members to be recognized. I have often said that our freshman class and sophomore class are some of our more capable Members, and I want them to have an opportunity to ask questions. Chairman Bernanke, your written statement will be made a part of the record, and you are now recognized for a summary of your testimony. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BEN S. BERNANKE, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Mr. Bernanke. Thank you, Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank, and members of the committee. I am pleased to present the Federal Reserve's semi-annual Monetary Policy report to the Congress. Let me begin with a discussion of current economic conditions and the outlook, and then I will talk a bit about monetary policy. The U.S. economy has continued to recover, but economic activity appears to have decelerated somewhat during the first half of the year. After rising at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the second half of 2011, real GDP increased at a 2 percent pace in the first quarter of this year, and available indicators point to a still smaller gain in the second quarter. Conditions in the labor market improved during the latter part of 2011 and early this year, with the unemployment rate falling about a percentage point over that period. However, after running at nearly 200,000 per month during the fourth and first quarters, the average increase in payroll employment shrank to 75,000 per month during the second quarter. Issues related to seasonal adjustment and the unusually warm weather this past winter can account for a part, but only a part, of this loss of momentum in job creation. At the same time, the jobless rate has recently leveled out at just over 8 percent. Household spending has continued to advance, but recent data indicate a somewhat slower rate of growth in the second quarter. Although declines in energy prices are now providing support to consumers' purchasing power, households remain concerned about their employment and income prospects and their overall level of confidence remains relatively low. One area where we see modest signs of improvement is housing. In part, because of historically low mortgage rates, both new and existing home sales have been gradually trending upward since last summer, and some measures of house prices have turned up in recent months as well. Construction has increased, especially in the multi-family sector. Still, a number of factors continue to impede progress in the housing market. On the demand side, many would-be buyers are deterred by worries about their own finances or about the economy more generally. Other prospective home buyers cannot obtain mortgages due to tight lending standards, impaired creditworthiness, or because their current mortgages are underwater, that is, they owe more than their homes are worth. On the supply side, the large number of vacant homes, boosted by the ongoing inflow of foreclosed properties, continues to divert demand from new construction. After posting strong gains over the second half of 2011 and into the first quarter of 2012, manufacturing production has slowed in recent months. Similarly, the rise in real business spending on equipment and software appears to have decelerated from the double digit pace seen over the second half of 2011 to a more moderate rate of growth over the first part of this year. Forward-looking indicators of investment demand, such as surveys of business conditions and capital spending plans, suggest further weakness ahead. In part, slowing growth in production and capital investment appears to reflect economic stresses in Europe, which together with some cooling in the economies of other trading partners, is restraining the demand for U.S. exports. At the time of the June meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, my colleagues and I projected that under the assumptions of appropriate monetary policy, economic growth will likely continue at a moderate pace over coming quarters and then pick up very gradually. Specifically, our projections for growth in real GDP prepared for the meeting had a central tendency of 1.9 to 2.4 percent for this year, and 2.2 to 2.8 percent for 2013. These forecasts are lower than those we made in January, reflecting the generally disappointing tone of the recent incoming data. In addition, financial strains associated with the crisis in Europe have increased since earlier this year, which, as I already noted, are weighing on both global and domestic economic activity. The recovery in the United States continues to be held back by a number of other headwinds, including still tight borrowing conditions for some businesses and households and, as I will discuss in more detail shortly, the restraining effects of fiscal policy and fiscal uncertainty. Moreover, although the housing market has shown improvement, the contribution of this sector to the recovery is less than has been typical of previous recoveries. These headwinds should fade over time, allowing the economy to grow somewhat more rapidly and the unemployment rate to decline toward a more normal level. However, given that growth is projected to be not much above the rate needed to absorb new entrants to the labor force, the reduction in the unemployment rate seems likely to be frustratingly slow. Indeed, the central tendency of participants' forecasts now has the unemployment rate at 7 percent or higher at the end of 2014. The committee made comparatively small changes in June to its projections for inflation. Over the first 3 months of 2012, the price index for personal consumption expenditures rose about 3.5 percent at an annual rate, boosted by a large increase in retail energy prices that, in turn, reflected the higher costs of crude oil. However, the sharp drop in crude oil prices in the past few months has brought inflation down. In all, the PCE price index rose at an annual rate of 1.5 percent over the first 5 months of this year, compared with a 2.5 percent rise over 2011 as a whole. The central tendency of the Committee's projections is that inflation will be 1.2 to 1.7 percent this year, and at or below the 2 percent level that the Committee judges to be consistent with its statutory mandate in 2013 and 2014. Participants at the June FOMC meeting indicated that they see a higher degree of uncertainty about their forecasts than normal, and that the risks to economic growth have increased. I would like to highlight two main sources of risk. The first is the euro-area fiscal and banking crisis, and the second is the U.S. fiscal situation. Earlier this year, financial strains in the euro-area moderated in response to a number of constructive steps by the European authorities, including the provision of 3-year bank financing by the European Central Bank. However, tensions in euro-area financial markets intensified again more recently, reflecting political uncertainties in Greece, and news of losses at Spanish banks, which in turn raised questions about Spain's fiscal position and the resilience of the euro-area banking system more broadly. Euro-area authorities have responded by announcing a number of measures, including funding for the recapitalization of Spain's troubled banks, greater flexibility in the use of the European financial backstops, and movement toward unified supervision of euro-area banks. Even with these announcements, however, Europe's financial markets and economy remain under significant stress, with spillover effects on financial and economic conditions in the rest of the world, including the United States. Moreover, the possibility that the situation in Europe will worsen further remains a significant risk to the outlook. The Federal Reserve remains in close communication with our European counterparts. Although the politics are complex, we believe that the European authorities have both strong incentives and sufficient resources to resolve the crisis. At the same time, we have been focusing on improving the resilience of our financial system to severe shocks, including those that might emanate from Europe. The capital and liquidity positions of U.S. banking institutions have improved substantially in recent years, and we have been working with U.S. financial firms to ensure that they are taking steps to manage the risks associated with their exposures to Europe. That said, European developments that resulted in a significant disruption in global financial markets would inevitably pose significant challenges for our financial system and for our economy. The second important risk to our recovery, as I mentioned, is the domestic fiscal situation. As is well known, U.S. fiscal policies are on an unsustainable path, and the development of a credible medium-term plan for controlling deficits should be a high priority. At the same time, fiscal decisions should take into account the fragility of the recovery. That recovery could be endangered by the confluence of tax increases and spending reductions that will take effect early next year if no legislative action is taken. The CBO has estimated that if the full range of tax increases and spending cuts were allowed to take effect, a scenario widely referred to as the ``fiscal cliff,'' a shallow recession, would occur early next year, and about 1\1/4\ million fewer jobs would be created in 2013. These estimates do not incorporate the additional negative effects likely to result from public uncertainty about how these matters will be resolved. As you recall, market volatility spiked and confidence fell last summer in part as a result of the protracted debate about the necessary increase in the debt ceiling. Similar effects could ensue as the debt ceiling and other difficult fiscal issues come into clearer view toward the end of the year. The most effective way that Congress could help to support the economy right now would be to work to address the Nation's fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery. Doing so earlier rather than later would help reduce uncertainty and boost household and business confidence. Finally, on monetary policy, in view of the weaker economic outlook, subdued projected path for inflation, and the significant downside risk to economic growth, the FOMC decided to ease monetary policy at its June meeting by continuing its Maturity Extension Program, or MEP, through the end of this year. The MEP combines sales of short-term Treasury securities with an equivalent amount of purchases of longer-term Treasury securities. As a result, it decreases the supply of longer-term Treasury securities available to the public, putting upward pressure on the prices of those securities and downward pressure on their yields, without affecting the overall size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. By removing additional longer-term Treasury securities from the market, the Fed's asset purchases also induced private investors to acquire other longer-term assets such as corporate bonds and mortgage-backed securities, helping to raise their prices and lower their yields, and thereby making broader financial conditions more accommodative. Economic growth is also being supported by the exceptionally low level of the target range for the Federal funds rate from zero to one-fourth percent and the economy's forward guidance regarding the anticipated path of the funds rate. As I reported in my February testimony, the FOMC extended its forward guidance in January, noting that it expects that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the Federal funds rate at least through late 2014. The Committee has maintained this conditional forward guidance at its subsequent meetings. Reflecting its concerns about the slow pace of progress in reducing unemployment and the downside risk to the economic outlook, the Committee made clear at its June meeting that it is prepared to take further action, as appropriate, to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer your questions. [The prepared statement of Chairman Bernanke can be found on page 54 of the appendix.] Chairman Bachus. Thank you, Chairman Bernanke. Next week, the House will be voting on Dr. Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Would you please give us your views on the legislation? Mr. Bernanke. Yes. Thank you. I absolutely agree with Dr. Paul that the Federal Reserve needs to be transparent and it needs to be accountable. I would argue that at this point, we are quite transparent and accountable. On monetary policy, besides our statement, besides our testimonies, we issue minutes after 3 weeks, we have quarterly projections, I give a press conference 4 times a year. There is quite a bit of information provided to help Congress evaluate monetary policy, as well as the public. Also, very importantly, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, its finances, and its operations are thoroughly vetted. We produce an annual financial statement which is audited by an independent external accounting firm. We provide quarterly updates and a weekly balance sheet. We have an independent Inspector General (IG.) We have additional scrutiny imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. And very importantly, and this is, I think, the crux of the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has extensive authority, broad authority to audit essentially all aspects of the Federal Reserve. And the Federal Reserve accepts that, and is cooperative with the GAO's efforts. There is, however, one important exception to what the GAO is allowed to audit under current law, and that specifically is monetary policy deliberations and decisions. So what the audit of the Fed bill would do would be to eliminate the exemption for monetary policy deliberations and decisions from the GAO audit. So in effect, what it would do is allow Congress, for example, to ask the GAO to audit a decision taken by the Fed about interest rates. That is very concerning because there is a lot of evidence that an independent central bank that makes decisions based strictly on economic considerations, and not based on political pressure, will deliver lower inflation and better economic results in the longer term. So, again, I want to agree with the basic premise that the Federal Reserve should be thoroughly transparent, and thoroughly accountable. I will work with everyone here to make sure that is the case. But I do feel it is a mistake to eliminate the exemption for monetary policy and deliberations, which would effectively, at least to some extent, create a political influence or political dampening effect on the Federal Reserve's policy decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. I will note that bill did not come before the Financial Services Committee, which surprised me. Throughout your tenure as Chairman, you have warned this committee and others about the dangers of the U.S. fiscal position, the annual deficit, and the growing national debt. And now, we are facing what you call correctly a fiscal cliff next January. I mentioned in my opening statement the need for long-term restructuring of our entitlements. And as the ranking member said, I was talking about Medicaid, Medicare, and to a lesser extent, Social Security. Would you tell us why you are concerned about the fiscal cliff, what will happen to the economy if we don't do anything to address it, and what long- term strategies Congress should be thinking about as we address these issues? Mr. Bernanke. Certainly. Thank you. First, I think there is very little disagreement that the U.S. fiscal situation is not sustainable. Under current law, deficits will continue to grow, interest will continue to accumulate, and ultimately we will simply not be able to pay our bills. So it is very important over the long term to make decisions collectively about tax and spending policies that will bring our fiscal situation into a more sustainable configuration. Now that, I should add, is very much a long-run proposition. Many of the issues that affect our long-term fiscal sustainability are decades rather than months or quarters in the future. And therefore, I think--I would just suggest, if I might, that in looking at these issues, we might want to go beyond the 10-year window which is usually the basis for fiscal decisions, and at least consider implications of actions for even longer horizons. So it is very important for fiscal stability, for financial stability, for Congress to provide a credible plan for stabilizing our long-term fiscal situation as soon as possible. That is a long run proposition, however. And the way the current law is set up, we are going to have a very, very sharp contraction in the fiscal situation, increased taxes, and cuts in spending, that are very dramatic and that occur almost simultaneously on January 1, 2013. As I discussed in my remarks, and as the CBO has documented in some detail, if that all happens, it will, no doubt, do serious damage to the recovery, and probably will cost a significant number of jobs. It is not essential to do it that way. I think the best way to address this is to attack the long-run fiscal sustainability issue seriously and credibly, but to do it in a more gradual way that doesn't have such negative effects on the recovery. And I think both of those goals can be met simultaneously, recognizing that it is not politically easy. But I believe that is the correct broad approach for addressing our fiscal situation. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. The ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning. Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, you say on page 6 that we should address the fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-range sustainability and the fragility of the recovery. There are some in the Congress who have been arguing that it is very important in the appropriations we are now voting on for the fiscal year that begins in a couple of months that we substantially reduce what we are committed to spend. Is that what you are warning us against when you talk about the fragility of the recovery? Is it the timing issue, that we should not be trying to do this in the immediate next fiscal year, but put into place a longer-term situation? Mr. Bernanke. I am talking about the collective impact of the tax increases and the spending cuts, which together come something close to 5 percent of GDP, which would, if it all hit at the same time, be very negative for growth. It is important to combine a more gradual approach with, of course, a longer- term plan to address sustainability. Mr. Frank. Let me ask you, you have been doing a great deal with your colleagues to try to provide an impetus to economic growth, at least an offset to the headwinds I think would be the way to put it. A number of people from the beginning of your efforts to do this, quantitative easing and the twist and all the other ways that you have been trying to make more money available, have warned that you were risking inflation, and some have said that this might worsen our fiscal condition because you might be losing money. You are aware of the criticisms. This many, I don't know, a couple of years into this, what is the record? Were you wrong? Mr. Bernanke. No, we are not wrong. I have a collection of op-eds and editorials from 2008 and 2009 about immediate hyperinflation which is right around the corner, collapse of the dollar, those sorts of things. None of that has happened. None of that is going to happen. The Federal Reserve is responsibly using monetary policy to try to support the recovery. We are very cognizant of our responsibility for price stability, and we have the tools to withdraw the policy stimulus at the appropriate time. But markets, for example as reflected in interest rates and inflation-adjusted Treasury securities, suggest that markets are quite confident that inflation will remain low. Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will share with you an insight that I am sure you have already figured out for yourself. But being able to say, ``I told you so'' is one of the few pleasures that improves with age. And you are certainly entitled to do that with the people who were crying wolf. Part of the problem though, was it was ideologically motivated, some of this criticism. That is there are people, and we have legislation that has been introduced, they are holding it off until after the election because they don't want to, I think, be seen supporting it too popularly, but people will advance it if they can, which would cut in half your dual mandate. You are mandated by the law under which you appear today to be equally concerned about price stability and employment. And there are some who argue that is inconsistent, and that you have, in fact, been distracted from your focus on price stability by this equal mandate on employment. I believe, by the way, that is part of what people are trying to get at with the audit. Because as you say, we have put into the law already auditing of all your financial transactions, any activity you have with a private company will sometimes be public. I believe this is part of an effort to undermine the dual mandate indirectly. They will try do it directly if they can later. Have you found any inconsistency between the two parts of the mandate? Has the concern for employment, which I admire you for showing, interfered with your ability to bring about price stability? Mr. Bernanke. As you noted, inflation is low. It is in fact a little bit below our 2 percent target, so there has not been an evident inconsistency. And I think the dual mandate has served us well, and we do have the ability to address both sides. That being said, we will do of course whatever Congress tells us to do. Mr. Frank. But have you found any inconsistency in meeting both aspects of the dual mandate? Mr. Bernanke. Generally speaking, no. In particular, low inflation does contribute to healthy employment in the longer term. So, they are complementary in that respect. Mr. Frank. And your efforts to help the economy overcome the headwinds have not led to any inflation? Mr. Bernanke. No. Mr. Frank. Another argument we have seen is that it is regulation that is slowing things down. You talked about the headwinds. I notice you did not mention the committee meeting you are about to go to as one of those headwinds. Having talked to us about the headwinds, in your judgment the financial reform legislation that we passed, is that one of the headwinds? Mr. Bernanke. I wouldn't want to rule out regulatory and tax factors as part of the uncertainty. There are a lot of uncertainties in the economy. Mr. Frank. I don't mean in theory; I mean the one that we have adopted. Mr. Bernanke. It is possible that some of these regulations have some impact on the cost of credit, but there has been a lot of analysis that suggests that the benefits in terms of reducing the risk of a financial crisis are extremely large, and that whatever costs are involved are worthwhile. Mr. Frank. I thank you. I hope, with that analysis from our bipartisan appointee here, that some of my colleagues who preach the virtues of benefit cost analysis will not ignore its benefits as you have just mentioned them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Dr. Paul for 5 minutes. Dr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question prepared, but I think I better follow up on the question you asked Chairman Bernanke dealing with the audit of the Fed. Because when the Fed talks about independence, what they are really talking about is secrecy, not transparency. And it is the secrecy that I don't like and that we have a right to know about. What the GAO cannot audit, and I believe it would be the position of the Chairman, is it cannot audit monetary policy. And you expressed yourself on monetary policy. It would not be able to look at agreements and operations with foreign central banks and governments and other banks, or transactions made under the direction of the FOMC, discussions or communications between the Board and the Federal Reserve system related to all those items. It is really not an audit without this. It is still secrecy. And why this is important is because of what happened 4 years ago. It is estimated that the amount of money that went in and out of the Fed for the bailout overseas was $15 trillion. How did we ever get into this situation where Congress has nothing to say about trillions and trillions of dollars bailing out certain banks and governments through these currency swaps? And the Chairman has publicly announced that he is available, there is a crisis going on in Europe, part of this dollar crisis going on that has been building. It is unique to the history of the world of monetary policy. And we stand ready. Who stands ready? The American taxpayer, because we are just going to print up the money. As long as they take our dollars, we will print the money and we will bail them all out and we are going to destroy the middle class. The middle class is shrinking. The banks get richer, and the middle shrinks, they lose their houses, they lose their mortgages. The system is biased against the middle class and the poor. So I would say that if we protect this amount of secrecy, it is not good policy and it is not good economics at all, and it is very unfair. But my question is, Mr. Chairman, whose responsibility is it under the Constitution to manage monetary policy? Which branch of government has the absolute authority to manage monetary policy? Mr. Bernanke. The Congress has the authority, and it has delegated it to the Federal Reserve. That is a policy decision that you have made. Dr. Paul. Yes, but they can't transfer authority. You can't amend the Constitution by just saying we are going to create some secret group of individuals and banks. That is amending the Constitution. You can't do that, and all of a sudden allow this to exist in secrecy. Whose responsibility is it for oversight? Which branch of government has the right of oversight? Mr. Bernanke. Congress has the right of oversight. And we certainly fully accept that, and we fully accept the need for transparency and accountability. But it is a well-established fact that an independent central bank will provide better outcomes. There is no constitutional reason why Congress couldn't take over monetary policy. If you want to do that, I guess that is your right to do it. But I am advising you that it wouldn't be very good from an economic policy point of view. Dr. Paul. Yes, but if it is allowed to be done in secret, this is the reason why I want to work within the system. What I want to say is Congress ought to get a backbone. They ought to say we deserve to know, we have a right to know, we have an obligation to know because we have an obligation to defend our currency. It is the destruction of the currency that destroys the middle class. There is a principle in free market banking that says if you destroy the value of currency through inflation, you transfer the wealth from the middle class and it gravitates to the very wealthy. The bankers, the government, the politicians, they all love this. It is a fact that the Federal Reserve is the facilitator. You couldn't have big government--if everybody loves big government, loves the Fed, because they can finance the wars and all the welfare you want. But it doesn't work, and it eventually ends up in a crisis. It is a solvency crisis, and it can't be solved by printing a whole lot of money. So I think the very first step is transparency, and for us to know. We have a right to know. And you may be correct in your assumption, at least I am sure you believe this, but maybe I should be talking to the Congress that we should stand up and say, yes, we demand to know. Trillions and trillions of dollars being printed out of thin air, and bailing out their friends. They stand ready to do it. The crisis is just, as far as I am concerned, my opinion is it is in the early stages. It is far from over. We are in deep doldrums, and we never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing. Congress keeps spending the money. Welfare expands exponentially. Wars never end. And deficits don't matter. And when it comes to cutting spending, Republicans and Democrats get together and say, oh, no, we can't really cut. And if we do cut, we just cut proposed increases. Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, regular order. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Paul. And you stand there and facilitate it all. Chairman Bachus. Thank you, Dr. Paul. Congressman Clay for 5 minutes. Mr. Frank. Can we get the answer in writing to that question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Bernanke. May I just comment, Congressman Paul, your objections are to the structure of the system, as you mentioned. But all of the actions we took during the crisis, the swaps, all of those things are fully disclosed. It is not a question of information. It is a question of whether or not you want to give the Fed those powers. If you don't want to, of course, Congress has the right to take them back. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Mr. Frank. Will the gentleman yield me 10 seconds? Mr. Clay. I yield to the ranking member. Mr. Frank. Just to mention that, in fact, in the financial reform bill, I think unanimously, while there were some differences, we repealed Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which was the single biggest grant of power to the Federal Reserve to lend any money it wanted if it thought there was a chance to do it. It was the AIG loan. So in fact, this Congress, in 2010, made a substantial reduction in the Federal Reserve's authority. Mr. Clay. Chairman Bernanke, the national unemployment rate is 8.2 percent, lower than it was a year ago. And as I said, it is important to put all Americans back to work. But I am troubled by the large disparity between the unemployment rate in the country at large and that of African Americans, which is at 8.2 percent versus 14.2 percent. I think that is a national crisis. Mr. Chairman, to what do you believe this large difference can be attributed? Mr. Bernanke. It is a tragedy and a problem, of course. It is a long-standing difference. I don't know how to parse the difference. Some of it is educational and other differences, some of it is discrimination. It is hard to say how much. Age and other demographic factors play a role. Unfortunately, this is not something monetary policy can do much about. We can only hope to address the overall state of the labor market and hope that a rising tide will lift all ships, so to speak. But clearly, African Americans remain disadvantaged in education, in wealth creation, and in opportunity. And those are issues that collectively I hope we can address. Mr. Clay. Do you think there is anything that the Federal Reserve, along with Congress, can do to address it? Mr. Bernanke. Again, the Federal Reserve's monetary policies are limited. We have a variety of things that bear on this indirectly, such as our Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which tries to help ensure that in our own employment, we have full diversity. Financial literacy programs that try to help people in lower- to moderate-income communities achieve a better level of savings and wealth. But more broadly, I think to really address these questions, issues of mobility and education, skills, et cetera, are more a function of congressional and State and local efforts than the Federal Reserve. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. Can the Federal Reserve institute a monetary policy that is strong enough to avoid a double-dip recession? Mr. Bernanke. At this point, we don't see a double-dip recession, we see continued moderate growth. But we are very committed to ensuring, or at least doing all we can to ensure that we continue to make progress on the employment side. And we have stated that we are prepared to take action as needed to try to make sure that we see continued progress on employment. Mr. Clay. In another area of the economy, how will the Federal Reserve expansion of asset rates for stimulating the economy succeed when many individuals have liquid assets that may lose value? Mr. Bernanke. You are talking about various monetary policies of the FOMC? Mr. Clay. Yes. Mr. Bernanke. Our monetary policies actually generally increase asset values, broadly speaking. The concern has been raised, and I fully understand it and sympathize with it, that low interest rates penalize people who live off the interest earnings of their investments or their savings. And again, I fully appreciate that concern. My response, at least in part, is that if we are going to have good returns on savings and investment overall, we need a healthy economy. And if we raise interest rates prematurely and cause the economy to go into recession, that is not going to be an environment where people can make a good return on their retirement funds or their other investments. Mr. Clay. If the United States were to announce it was moving to a gold standard, what would you expect to happen to the price of gold? And how difficult would that make it for the country to fix the value of currency in terms of the price of gold? Mr. Bernanke. That is a very complex question. I think there is an issue about whether, at least at current prices, there would be enough gold to set up a global gold standard. But there are more fundamental issues with the gold standard than that which I have addressed on other occasions. And in particular, a gold standard doesn't imply stability in the prices of the goods and services that people buy every day. It implies a stability in the price of gold itself. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Let me advise the Republicans on the committee that Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Jones, because of the questioning lineup, go first, and then under the Greenspan rules, Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Fincher, if they are here. And then, we will resume with Mr. Royce. So at this time, I recognize Mr. Hensarling, the vice chairman. Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Bernanke. You are clearly here before us because of your dual mandate. And speaking of maximizing employment, clearly the Fed took a number of dramatic actions in 2008, some of which I consider proper, some of which I still question. 2008 was 4 years ago. I think it is an inescapable conclusion that we have seen the greatest monetary and fiscal stimulus thrown at an economy in our history, and what do we see but 41 months of 8 percent-plus unemployment, 14.9 percent real unemployment, if we look at those who have left the labor force and those who are seeking full-time employment. We have anemic GDP growth, probably half of what it should be by historic standards. And my interpretation of your testimony is you are predicting much of the same. Why shouldn't the American people come to the inescapable conclusion that we have either had a profound failure of monetary policy or a profound failure of fiscal policy, and which is it? Mr. Bernanke. I don't think it is the case that there has been no progress. In the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, we almost had a collapse in the economy, a tremendous increase in unemployment. The unemployment rate went about 10 percent. Now, it is true that the recovery has been slower than we would have liked. But clearly, we have made progress in unemployment and in job creation. Mr. Hensarling. Isn't it true that if you look at the 10 post-war recessions, we are in the midst of the slowest, weakest recovery of all? Mr. Bernanke. There is some evidence that financial crises lead to recessions that are slower to mend. We also had a housing boom and bust, which is also a major factor. So there have been a number of reasons that are consistent with historical experience why the recovery should be slower than average. Mr. Hensarling. Okay, let me move on since you don't agree with the premise of that question. You at least acknowledged in the question from the gentleman from Missouri, I think you used the phrase, there are limits to what monetary policy can achieve. I would like to explore those limits for a moment. Again, when I look at QE1, QE2, I think we are in our second Operation Twist--and, again, I think it is hard to conclude that we have--that, again, we have seen the greatest monetary stimulus in the history of the country. Obviously, you have a rather unique balance sheet today with asset-backed securities. And, yet, your new data reveals that public companies are sitting on $1.7 trillion of excess liquidity, banks have $1.5 trillion in excess reserves. And so I am trying to figure out, what is it that--on the Federal Reserve menu, what would two more Operation Twists and two more QEs, even if you supersized them, achieved that haven't already been achieved? Mr. Bernanke. First, I think that the previous efforts did have productive effects. QE1, for example, was followed a few months later by the beginning the recovery in the middle of 2009. And QE2 came at a time when we were seeing increased risk of deflation, which was eliminated by the QE2-- Mr. Hensarling. Then why is all this capital, Mr. Chairman, sitting on the sidelines? And you putting in more to excess reserves, how is that improving our economy? Mr. Bernanke. The excess reserves are not the issue. The issue is the state of financial conditions. And we are still able to lower interest rates, improve, broadly speaking, asset prices, and that provides some incentive. Now, if I might-- Mr. Hensarling. Are we not essentially in a negative real interest rate environment already? Mr. Bernanke. Let me just agree with you on the following, that monetary policy is not a panacea, it is not the ideal tool. Part of the problem is that we hit the zero lower bound, so we can't use the usual practice of cutting short-term interest rates. So I would like to see other parts of the government-- Mr. Hensarling. In the very limited time I have, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you, when I am speaking to either Fortune 50 CEOs, world-class investors, small business people in east Texas, here is what I hear: number one, uncertain Federal regulation and certainly harmful Federal regulation is crushing jobs; number two, the threatened single largest tax increase in U.S. history; number three, a Nation on the road to bankruptcy; and number four, rhetoric out of this President that vilifies success in the free enterprise system. And monetary policy is not going to solve that problem. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Capuano? Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bernanke, first of all, I want to thank you for your steadfast commitment to taking action as you deem appropriate. I am not any different than anybody else; I haven't agreed with everything you have done. But--and today is another day of it, where everybody gets to criticize everything you have ever done for the last 10 years. And I may take my shot here or there, but I just want to say thank you for not giving up, thank you for not withering under this. We still need you and the Fed to be actively involved, even if there are things you do with which I disagree. There are so many things I would like to talk about, but in 5 minutes, I can't do it. So I think I am going to talk a little bit first about the Libor situation. For me--and I am not asking for a decision. I know it is not technically some of the things you are--but one of the things I have heard from the fiscal crisis of 2008 is that so many people walked away scot-free, that the general public thinks that we, the whole government, turned our back on any potential wrongdoing. And in this particular situation, if it turns up that our largest banks in the world repeatedly, intentionally lied in order to manipulate the market, do you think it is appropriate for them to be held accountable? Mr. Bernanke. Of course. Mr. Capuano. Either civilly or criminally, whatever might be--and I am not asking you to make a judgment, but-- Mr. Bernanke. Let me just-- Mr. Capuano. --if others make a determination that is appropriate, would you think that is an appropriate-- Mr. Bernanke. Currently, there are any number of enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, the CFTC, the SEC, and foreign and State regulators looking at this, and I am sure that they will apply the law appropriately. Mr. Capuano. Because I would appreciate and I think the American people would appreciate it very much if somebody who intentionally lied to manipulate a worldwide market on something that affects every one of our daily lives will be held accountable. I want to shift a little bit to the fiscal cliff item. And, again, I am not asking you to tell us what to do. I respect the difference of opinion. But this whole fiscal cliff thing is revolving around, give or take, $450 billion, $500 billion that will be shifted around, give or take, January of next year. That is round numbers, round dates. Five hundred billion dollars--the Fed itself changed the fiscal situation in this country for over a trillion dollars in a matter of less than a year between 2000 and 2008. And to suggest that $500 billion in an economy that is $15 trillion is going to change the dynamics of the world, I think it is a little concerning to me. But I guess I would like to ask, if it is not going to be $450 billion, $500 billion--and I am not asking you to tell me whether it should be tax cuts or spending cuts--what is a number, do you think, a general number--to me, that looks like approximately 3 percent of the economy. I think you said 5 percent. Whatever the number is, what do you think is an acceptable number either in tax cuts or tax increases or spending cuts to shift? Because we are not going to maintain the status quo. We are going to do something. That something may, of course, be the reaction of doing nothing. But something will change. And I am just wondering, what is a number that you think will not dramatically throw us off this cliff? Mr. Bernanke. First, the Federal Reserve's actions are buying and selling securities, not spending and taxing. They are very different. The CBO says that the fiscal cliff is on the order of 4 to 5 percent of GDP, and that big a shift would have a significant effect on real activity in employment. So I am in favor of an aggressive plan over a period of time. The $4 trillion number gets tossed around sometimes over the next decade; I am in favor of that. And I can't give you a specific number for the short term, but I think there ought to be a more gradual approach. I am not saying that you shouldn't consolidate the budget; I just don't want it all to happen on 1 day, essentially. Mr. Capuano. As I understand this, it may happen in 1 day, but it won't impact in 1 day, like everything else. Federal spending doesn't end that day; we have obligations that we have to continue. Sequestration cuts aren't going to happen like that. Tax increases, I don't all of a sudden give the Federal Government $3,000 more that day; it is a slow, gradual item over a year. So I think that some of the fiscal cliff thing really needs a dose of reality. I am asking you this because, up until now, I have seen you as a person of reality and a conservative approach toward the real impact of whatever we do. Mr. Bernanke. The CBO estimates that it would cost 1\1/4\ million jobs next year, and I don't think that is an unreasonable estimate. Mr. Capuano. Oh, no, I understand. I have read the CBO report. I know exactly what they say. At the same time, the CBO is one source, and you are another. You are not telling me you fully embrace everything the CBO says in that report? Mr. Bernanke. I am just saying that order of magnitude, in terms of jobs and GDP, seems reasonable to me. Mr. Capuano. I don't think everybody would like that, but there is a serious question. See, I would argue with the CBO report on other issues, but they are not here today; you are. It is unrealistic to think that nothing is going to happen. Either we are going to do nothing, which will mean tax increases, which will mean massive spending cuts, or we will do something. We probably will not do everything; probably not kick the ball down the road and just extend all of the tax cuts and get rid of sequestration altogether. We are going to do something in the middle. The question is, what is in the middle that is a reasonable number? Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Capuano. I am not looking to jeopardize the economy, and-- Chairman Bachus. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. Mr. Capuano. --I guess I am just looking for some guidance. Mr. Bernanke. I don't have a magic number. I just think you should take a smoother approach to obtaining fiscal sustainable. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, Chairman Bernanke, thank you for being here. I want to say, two of my worst votes in 18 years were the Iraq war--we didn't have to go to Iraq--and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And if I was not going to yield my time, I would ask you about reinstating Glass-Steagall. I think I will write you a letter with that question, sir. But at this time, because he is one of my dearest friends and I supported him for the Republican nomination to be President of the United States, I yield my time to Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I wanted to make a very brief statement about our previous discussion about the Audit the Fed bill. That bill has nothing to do with transferring who does monetary policy. It is strictly a transparency bill. Monetary policy reform, I believe, will come, but that is another subject. This is just to know more about what the Federal Reserve is doing. Mr. Chairman, one of your key points that you have made through your academic career as well as being at the Fed has been the need to prevent deflation. Would you agree with that? Mr. Bernanke. Generally, yes, sir. Dr. Paul. Right. And you argue that the depression was prolonged by the Federal Reserve not being able to reinflate. So, in that sense, I think you really have achieved--you have had the chance--you were put in a situation that you alone didn't create. It is, as far as I am concerned, the system created it and other managers helped create this. And there was this, what I see as a natural tendency to deflate and liquidate and clear the market. And under your philosophy, you say we can't allow this to happen, we have to prevent it. And I would say you have done a pretty good job. The monetary base has been tripled, and in the last 12 months I think M1 has grown about 16 percent, M2 over 9 percent. So it seems to be like the monetary system, the monetary numbers are still growing. But the pricing houses--everybody knows there is a bubble. I like to believe that the free-market economists knew about it and other predicted it; others did not. But the prices soared up, everybody knows there was a bubble, and then they collapsed. When those prices of houses collapse, do you call that deflation? Mr. Bernanke. No. Deflation is the price of current goods and services. So, inflation doesn't capture house prices. It includes the house or the rental-- Dr. Paul. Okay. And I think one of the problems even getting a full-fledged discussion out is sometimes the definition of words, about what ``inflation'' and ``deflation'' means. Because as far as I am concerned, deflation is when the money supply shrinks, and inflation is when the money supply expands. But just about everybody in the country, especially the financial markets, and the way I think the conventional use of inflation is the CPI. And I think it is a lousy measurement. Because if it is the money supply increase, if prices going down of houses is not deflation, I wonder why it is that inflation is measured by the CPI going up rather than the money supply going up. Our argument is that once you distort interest rates and increase the supply of money, you end up with this gross distortion that is demanding some correction. So I would--I have worked on this for years, and we are not going to solve it today. The definitions would be much better if we--if prices of houses going down is not deflation, then CPI going up shouldn't be inflation. But we have had trouble for 5 years. The monetary system, you say this is not the be-all and end-all. You can't solve every problem with monetary policy. We have had this for 5 years, and we are still in a mess. Is there ever a time--let's say we go 5 more years and we have the same problems but much worse--you might say, I have to reassess my philosophy on monetary policy, or do you think it will be the same no matter what kind of crisis? Can you foresee any kind of problem that we would have that would cause you to reassess your assumptions? Mr. Bernanke. I can't conjecture what specifically, but of course, yes. I am evidence-based; I look and see what happens and try to draw conclusions from that. Certainly. Dr. Paul. The definitions, obviously, to me are very, very important. And if we don't come to this conclusion and we use these terms--inflation demands corrections, and the market wants to correct. So this is why we believe that we are going to have perpetual doldrums and finally have a big one. Do you consider this recession that we are facing today something that is significantly different since 1945? Much worse and different in any way? Mr. Bernanke. Yes, because of the financial crisis, yes. Mr. Frank. Regular order. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Paul. That was a double dose you got. So that was pleasantly unexpected, I guess. Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bernanke, Mr. Capuano has already asked you about the need for accountability if Libor was, in fact, systematically gamed. But we frequently hear, with respect to whatever the latest scandal is and certainly with respect to the conduct that led up to the financial crisis, that the conduct might have been unethical, it might be objectionable, but it probably wasn't illegal, it certainly wasn't criminal, and that the fault was with Congress in not passing tougher laws, for having passed weak laws. And I have no stake in defending the laws passed by Congress before I got here, but I have read the transcript of the telephone conversation between an employee of the New York Fed and the Barclays trader, and I have examined the criminal fraud statutes. Several transcripts show that Barclays admitted they were filing false reports. They were not filing an honest interest rate. But one transcript sort of set out why. They said that the Financial Times had done a chart that showed that Barclays was consistently paying a higher rate. Folks thought that meant that the other banks knew something about Barclays that was not generally known. And Barclays' stock went down, their shares went down. And he said that was why they were not filing an honest rate. They were filing a rate that would be kind of like everybody else's, so that it wouldn't call attention to them, like the attention that the Financial Times had called to them, and it wouldn't affect their shares. The definition of fraud appears to be willful intent-- providing false information with the willful intent to deceive. It can be words or acts or the suppression of material facts, again, with intent to deceive. A material fact is one that someone, a shareholder or an investor, would attach importance to in determining whether or not to sell and in determining the price at which to sell those shares. With respect to the Barclays shares, presumably the traders and many Barclays executives held a substantial number of Barclays shares. They probably had options to buy Barclays shares. They probably were paid bonuses in Barclays shares. So it appears that Barclays was providing information they knew to be false. They were providing information that they knew would affect the share price. They provided it with the intent of affecting the share price. And they personally benefited from the effect on the share price of having provided false information. What is missing there? What does Congress need to do? If that does not meet the definition of criminal fraud, how does Congress need to change the law? Mr. Bernanke. I would recommend--the Federal Reserve is not an enforcement agency. This is currently under the purview of the Department of Justice-- Mr. Miller of North Carolina. Right. Mr. Bernanke. --and other enforcement agencies. Mr. Miller of North Carolina. But at the time of those-- Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Secretary Geithner are now in a dispute over exactly what Secretary Geithner told him. But there doesn't seem to be any dispute that there was no referral to a U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution. Why was there not a referral for criminal prosecution? Mr. Bernanke. As I understood, what the information came across was not quite as explicit as you characterized. It was more, sort of, market chatter about-- Mr. Miller of North Carolina. No. That is directly from the transcript of a conversation between a Barclays employee, a Barclays trader, and an employee of the New York Federal Reserve. Mr. Bernanke. The Barclays trader was based in New York and was talking about rumors and things that he had heard. He didn't have explicit information. But the point, the real point, the relevant point and the important point is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York did inform the appropriate authorities, and it briefed all of the financial regulators, who, in turn, undertook investigations which began about the same time, including especially the CFTC investigation. Mr. Miller of North Carolina. You said yesterday that you did not know, that no one at the Federal Reserve, the New York Fed knew the reports that Barclays was filing false information to affect the Libor rate because it affected their derivative positions, presumably interest rate swaps. There are many reports that there are many banks under investigation. Obviously, that conduct would be much more effective if it was done in concert rather than independently. But it wouldn't make sense to act in concert and it wouldn't really be effective independently if their derivatives position were all over the place. Is there examination now into whether the derivatives positions, the interest rate swap positions of the various Libor banks, in fact, moved in concert? Mr. Bernanke. The CFTC is looking at that kind of issue. That is not under our jurisdiction. The investigations from other agencies are addressing those questions. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Manzullo? Mr. Manzullo. Thank you for coming, Chairman Bernanke. What role does uncertainty in the marketplace have to do with our financial recovery? Mr. Bernanke. I think uncertainty is--as I have mentioned once or twice in this venue, my Ph.D. thesis was about the effects of uncertainty on investment decisions and suggested that it would impede decisions that would be hard to reverse later when information became available. So I am sure uncertainty is playing some role. I think where there is some disagreement is on the relative weights of different kinds of uncertainty. No doubt, regulatory and tax uncertainty are part of the broad set of issues that are concerning investors and entrepreneurs. We hear that a lot in our anecdotes. There is also, though, general uncertainty about the recovery itself. Will the recovery be sustained or not? In order to be confident about hiring people, for example, you like to have greater confidence that, in fact, your sales will be-- Mr. Manzullo. What you are hearing is also what I am hearing. But I am also hearing from a lot of small business people who have around 50 people that they are going to fire people to get below 50 so they are not covered by the President's health care. I could tell you story after story of small manufacturing facilities that are--they are going to fire people because they are not going to tolerate having to put up with the Affordable Health Care Act. And even one major employer back home in Rockford, Illinois, simply told his employees, ``I am going to offer you no more health care. I will pay the $2,000 fine because I am well over 50.'' Those businesspeople have money. Large corporations have money. And have you heard about the uncertainty out there with the businesspeople over the President's Affordable Health Care Act and the impact that that has on the recovery? Mr. Bernanke. We get lots of anecdotes. The Reserve Bank Presidents from around the country come to the meeting and talk about what they are hearing from their contacts, and contacts frequently cite various kinds of uncertainty, including regulatory uncertainty. As I said, though, it is hard to judge whether there is a small factor or a large factor. Mr. Manzullo. From what I can tell, it is a very large factor. I spend most of my time in this place working on manufacturing issues. And couple that uncertainty with the weak orders coming from the EU, which I think is our second-largest trading partner besides Canada, and the Institute for Supply Management is now below 50. It dropped, I think, a dramatic 6 points just in 1 month. If the manufacturing sector isn't going to lead the recovery, what will? Mr. Bernanke. I noted in my remarks that manufacturing seems to have slowed somewhat. And part of it is the global economic situation-- Mr. Manzullo. Demand. Mr. Bernanke. --demand, slowing in European and Asia. And that was part of my earlier point. There are multiple factors involved here. One sector which is doing a little better is housing, and over time that will be a contributing factor. But it is true, as Mr. Hensarling pointed out, for example, that growth has been slow, and part of the reason is that following a financial crisis, some of the factors that normally lead to a strong recovery, like a housing recovery or extension of credit, have been affected to some extent by-- Mr. Manzullo. What I have been seeing is that those manufacturers involved in mining, oil, and gas exploration, anything dealing with energy, they are actually expanding because they see the need for that. And banks are lending based upon that. But the massive uncertainty in the manufacturing sector, the fact that companies are unwilling to make decisions is, as you said, compounding everything. I met with a bunch of European Union parliamentarians yesterday. They believe--of course, it is in their best interest to say so, but I really believe that they think that things are stabilizing in Europe. Your opinion of that? Mr. Bernanke. I don't think they are close to having a long-term solution that will solve the problem. And until they find those long-term solutions, we are going to continue to see periods of financial market volatility, I think. Mr. Manzullo. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Mr. Scott, I guess. No-- Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to-- Chairman Bachus. --Mr. Carson. I am sorry. Mr. Carson? Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bernanke, in previous testimony before this committee, you have mentioned that one of the best ways to strengthen our labor force is to improve the quality of education, especially in disadvantaged areas suffering from persistent unemployment and underemployment. Some encouraging news that I found in the new monetary report is that consumer debt has shrunk. It is not clear to me whether our U.S. savings rate is increasing in proportion to the decrease in consumer debt. But I am very interested in your assessment on the role of financial education, particularly for young people and especially students. The disturbing aspect to me of current consumer debt is the alarming increase of student loan debt. Do you believe, sir, that investments in financial education can help strengthen our economy? And are there any successful models or programs that you see as being effective in this area? Mr. Bernanke. The Federal Reserve is very committed to financial education and economic education more generally. I mentioned yesterday that I am, later this summer, going to meet, on video, with teachers from all over the country who are doing financial education to talk about different approaches and the value of that. It is clearly very important. The crisis showed that many people made bad financial decisions, and that hurt not only them but also hurt the broader economy. So it is extremely important. At the same time, I think on the other side of the ledger it is important that we make sure that financial information, such as credit card statements and the like are understandable, that they are not full of legalese and small print and those kinds of things. So there are really two sides to it. So, yes, that is very important. There is still a lot of work going on about trying to figure out what works in financial education, and I would say that the record is mixed. One of the things that we have learned, I think, is that financial education should be introduced in school, in high schools and so on, but it is also important to have a lifelong opportunity. And many folks don't pay much attention to these issues until the time comes for them to buy a house or make some other big financial decision, and that is when they are most likely to listen carefully and absorb those lessons. Mr. Carson. Thank you, sir. I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Fincher for 5 minutes. Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Privileges to the lowest-ranking Member, myself: I am close to the action. So thank you for coming in today. To the chairman's opening question, Chairman Bernanke, about auditing the Fed, none of us are challenging--I am not challenging the transparency that you have given to us in seeing what is happening. But moving forward to the future, not the past, the ranking member's opening comments about playing politics, most of--I know the freshman class, we are not here to play politics. This is about trying to prevent--or hopefully build a better America than we have now. And auditing the Fed, to most of the American people, seems like something that is responsible if the political games wouldn't be played. Can you just kind of comment? Are you that opposed to auditing the Fed? Mr. Bernanke. Very much so, because I think the term ``audit the Fed'' is deceptive. The public thinks that auditing means checking the books, looking at the financial statements, making sure that you are not doing special deals and that kind of thing. All of those things are completely open. The GAO has complete ability to address all the things we did during the crisis. All of our books are audited by an outside, private-- Deloitte & Touche, a private auditor. We have an Inspector General. If there is anything that Congress wants to know about our financial operations, all they have to do is say so. The one thing which I consider to be absolutely critical, though, about the bill is that it would eliminate the exemption for monetary policy in deliberations. And the nightmare scenario I have is one in which some future Fed Chairman would decide, say, to raise the Federal funds rates by 25 basis points, and somebody in this room would say, ``I don't like that decision. I want the GAO to go in and get all the records, get all the transcripts, get all the preparatory materials, and give us an independent opinion on whether or not that was the right decision.'' And I think that would have a chilling effect and would prevent the Fed from operating on the apolitical, independent basis that is so important and which experience shows is much more likely to lead to a low-inflation, healthy-currency kind of economy. Mr. Fincher. Is there anything that could be done, any kind of compromise, in your opinion, that needs to be done, any more than it is being done now? Mr. Bernanke. I think everything in the bill is basically fine except for getting rid of this exemption for monetary policy deliberations and operations. I think that is the part that is critical. And it has nothing to do with our books. That is the thing I hope to convey. Mr. Fincher. Okay. The second question: Since the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve has put into play several measures to help stimulate an economic recovery, like quantitative easing, Operation Twist, et cetera. Do you see these measures as temporary solutions to stimulating the economy, or would the Federal Reserve continue these measures on a more permanent basis? Some of us fear that we are just dumping tons of money into the economy, and that sooner or later, with the low interest rates, that things are really going to spin out of control when we do have a recovery. Mr. Bernanke. They are, of course, temporary. The economy grows in the long run because of all kinds of fundamental factors: the skills of the workforce, the quality of the infrastructure, how effective the tax system is, research and development, all of those things. Monetary policy can't do much about longer-term growth. Mr. Fincher. Right. Mr. Bernanke. All we can try to do is try to smooth out periods where the economy is depressed because of lack of demand. And because of the financial crisis, the economy has been slow to reach back to its potential, and we are trying to provide additional support so the recovery can bring the economy back to its potential. But in the medium- and long-term, monetary policy can't do anything to make the economy healthier or grow faster except to keep inflation low, which we are committed to doing. Things like education, infrastructure, R&D, Tax Code, all those things, obviously, are the private sector and Congress, not the Federal Reserve. Mr. Fincher. Do you fear--last question--that when the economy starts to turn and move--and it is going to move, hopefully when Washington can add certainty and stability and give confidence back to the American people that we are not going to mess things up--there is so much money out there, that this thing is going to really go and inflation is going to be a huge problem? Mr. Bernanke. No, it will not. We know how to reverse what we did. We know how to take the money out of the system. We know how to raise interest rates. So it will be a similar pattern to what we have seen in previous episodes where the Fed cut rates, provided support for the recovery, and then when the economy reached a point of takeoff where it could support itself on its own, then the Fed pulled back, took away the punchbowl. And we can do that and we will do that when the time comes. Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Chairman Bernanke. Chairman Bachus. Mr. Himes for 5 minutes. Mr. Himes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Chairman Bernanke, thank you for being with us, and thank you for your efforts and work over the course of the last several years to stabilize our economy. Mr. Chairman, I read very closely and listened to your testimony on the things that are holding back our recovery and read that monetary policy report here. And I want to just dwell on them for a minute or 2. I saw financial strains associated with Europe, still-tight borrowing conditions, the restraining effects of fiscal policy and fiscal uncertainty, and the housing market are the four that you highlighted. Presuming that we are not, in the near term, going to do a lot about number one and number four, I want to explore with you still-tight borrowing conditions and whether there is anything that Congress could do to assist in that. I know you are hesitant to sort of make prescriptions to the Congress, and I understand that. But, of course, the Federal Reserve has been pretty clear in their message that monetary policy alone is not enough, so I am going to explore that a little bit with you. In the report, you say that still-tight borrowing conditions are a result of uncertainty in the economic outlook and high unemployment. You did not mention uncertainty associated with Dodd-Frank and the rule-writing process and the new regulations. Can I assume from that omission that you, the Federal Reserve, does not believe that that regulatory uncertainty is, in fact, a material cause of still-tight borrowing conditions? And if it is material, should we be doing something about it? Mr. Bernanke. There are a lot of reasons for the problem. Part of it is on the demand side, that borrowers are financially impaired from the crisis and they are not as creditworthy or as attractive to lenders as they were earlier. There are other various factors, including, for example, concerns that banks have about having mortgages put back to them if they go bad, et cetera. So there is a lot of conservatism in lending right now, as well. I don't think I would say that there was no effect of financial regulatory policy on any of this. For example, as we try to develop rules for mortgage lending, for mortgage securitization, there is still uncertainty about what the playing field will look like when the private-sector securitization market comes back or if it does come back-- Mr. Himes. No, no, I understand, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to interrupt, but, again, my question wasn't was there no effect; it was, was it material? I happen to think that the reforms in Dodd-Frank, many of them are terribly, terribly important, and there are obviously things that we will need to change over time. I am really, sort of, looking for materiality. Because, frankly, you don't mention it in the report. If you were to say that, no, it is a material effect on credit availability, I might rethink my position. Mr. Bernanke. I think it is partly on us, the regulators, more than on Congress, in that some of these things have not been resolved one way or the other. A number of people have talked about uncertainty. If we can move to provide clarity about how the regulations will be written and so on, I think that will be helpful. And I certainly agree that the benefit of financial reform, which is to reduce the threat of another financial crisis, is extremely important to take into consideration. Mr. Himes. Thank you. The second question: In your second reason for headwinds here, ``the restraining effects of fiscal policy,'' I wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean by ``the restraining effects of fiscal policy.'' How is that providing a headwind to our economic recovery? Mr. Bernanke. Broadly speaking, fiscal policy both at the Federal and the State and local level is now contractionary-- that is, pulling demand out of the system rather than putting it in. And you can see that most clearly at the State and local level, where tight budgets over the last few years have meant that at the same time that we are trying to increase employment in the country as a whole, that, of course, many people are being laid off by the State and local governments. So I am not making a judgment about that. Obviously, they have fiscal issues they have to deal with. But it is just a fact that fiscal tightening, particularly at the State and local level, has been something of a drag on the recovery in the last few-- Mr. Himes. Can I conclude from all that, though, that your achieving your mandate of full employment, were we to abide by the policies suggested by some in this institution for more severe austerity now, can I conclude that if we pursued that policy, it would actually not be helpful toward full employment? Mr. Bernanke. Again, what I have been advocating is sort of a two-part policy, one which makes strong and credible steps toward achieving sustainability over the medium term, over the next decade, while avoiding sharp cliffs and sharp contractions in the near term, yes. Mr. Himes. Last question, drawing on your experience as an economist: There is all sorts of debate around here about the things that we might do--extending safety net programs, unemployment insurance, tax cuts, tax cuts for middle-class families, tax cuts for the wealthy, infrastructure investment. Each of these things, each of these fiscal policies have different multiplier effects, more positive impact on the economy. Chairman Bachus. Okay-- Mr. Himes. I wonder if you might just relatively rank the multiplier effects of those four initiatives that I just laid out. Mr. Bernanke. No, I think that would come too close to advocating the different approaches. And each of these things has not only multiplier effects but it has different costs, it has different benefits to the economy, different philosophies about the size of government and so on. So I think, unfortunately, that is a congressional prerogative to figure that out. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Himes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bachus. Mr. Royce for 5 minutes. Mr. Royce. Thank you. Chairman Bernanke, looking out on the horizon, on the long road ahead of us, there are two studies that seem to indicate the same thing: one recently that came out of the IMF which indicated that a 10-percentage-point fall in the debt-to-GDP ratio typically leads to output rising by 1.4 percent; and a similar conclusion coming from the other direction from Rogoff and Reinhart who say in their paper, ``Growth in a Time of Debt,'' that debt burdens above 90 percent are associated with 1 to 2 percent lower median growth going forward. Our entitlement obligations will consume all of the average post-war projected tax revenue in a few decades, if we just look at the studies that, frankly, you have shared with us. Will we be able to see strong sustainable economic growth without addressing our entitlement obligations, which you have labeled ``unsustainable'' in terms of the way they are currently set to compound? Mr. Bernanke. On current law, healthcare expenditures are expected to rise very substantially, to the extent that they would be crowding out other parts of the government or, alternatively, requiring significant tax increases. So if you want to avoid those outcomes, it is important to find ways to reduce expenditure. I hope that it can be done in ways that don't involve worse health care but just involve a more efficient delivery of health care. Mr. Royce. Would you like to make any other observations in terms of the deficits or the size of the debt as you look 10 years out, 15 years out? Mr. Bernanke. Again, the CBO has done many analyses which show that our fiscal path is unsustainable, even if we avoid some kind of crisis at some point. While I don't necessarily buy exactly into the 90 percent number and so on, I think it is pretty clear that a high level of debt to GDP, both because of future tax obligations, high interest rates, is going to impede growth, all else equal. Mr. Royce. And that will impact employment in the future. Let me go to another question, regarding Basel III. I think it is a step in the right direction, but at the end of the day, capital is the ultimate buffer that stands between the taxpayer and the systemically risky institutions, right? So under Basel III, my concern is that it continues to rely on internal risk models at financial institutions when you set the capital levels, the requirements there. I don't mind those being used internally for purposes, but to use that to set the capital levels--if I may quote your former colleague, Alan Blinder, he says that, prior to the crisis, these models were gained, is the argument he is making, to avoid raising additional capital. And, of course, what that means is that they had excessive leverage. And if you look at the Basel committee study: ``Capital levels in American banks employing the internal ratings approach would experience a capital reduction of 7 to 27 percent. Those adhering to the standardized approach typically used by the smaller banks would experience a 2 percent increase in capital demands.'' So we have a recent study which found 83 percent of institutional investors want to get rid of model discretion. Mr. Chairman, given the history of the gaming of these models in setting capital levels, and given that institutional investors are demanding to move away from model discretion, are you comfortable with continuing to use these models in setting capital calculations? If you just look at the minimum leverage ratio, are you comfortable with that 3 percent level of Tier 1 capital to total assets, or a 33-to-1 total leverage there? Mr. Bernanke. Right. So the overall system has been strengthened quite a bit with the international leverage ratio--more capital, higher-quality capital, buffers, liquidity rules, and so on. So I think it is a stronger system. Your point is well-taken. For those models to be worthwhile, they need to be validated and they need to be good. The Federal Reserve and the other regulators don't just let you use whatever model you want; they have to be approved and validated by the regulators. And I believe that is an adequate-- Mr. Royce. But the argument I am making is that the only way to guarantee that doesn't happen is to focus on the old- fashioned minimum leverage ratio-- Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Royce. --which, under Basel III, is far too low. Chairman Bachus. Thank you, Mr. Royce. Mr. Carney? Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bernanke, thank you for coming in today. By the time you get to me, many of my questions that I have have already been addressed. So I would like to just go back to some of the things that were in your statement and in your report, just to confirm my understanding. Since I get it that the Fed is doing everything it can, with respect to monetary policy, to address the employment part of your dual mandate--is that correct? Mr. Bernanke. We can continue to evaluate the situation, evaluate the outlook, look at the tools that we have, and we are committed to make sure that we continue to have improvement on employment. But I don't want to imply that we have done everything we can. We may do more in the future. Mr. Carney. So there is more that you might do? Mr. Bernanke. It is certainly possible that we will take additional action if we conclude that we are not making progress toward higher levels of employment. Mr. Carney. Thank you. And there seems to be little reason for concern on the price stability side at the moment. Mr. Bernanke. For now, inflation seems to be well in check. Mr. Carney. And you also said that progress has been made in terms of the recovery, but unemployment is still too high, and the recovery has stalled and is not as strong as maybe you had hoped at this point. Mr. Bernanke. The recovery has decelerated recently. It is sort of a pattern we have seen for the last few years, that things seem to be stronger in the beginning of the year and then the slowdown around spring, spring and summer. So we will try to assess whether this is just a temporary slowdown or whether something more fundamental is happening. Again, we are committed to doing what is necessary to make sure the recovery continues and employment continues to grow. Mr. Carney. At one point, you said that two big risks to economic growth were the European situation and the effects of the U.S. fiscal policy, the so-called fiscal cliff. And in part of your response to that, you said that the most effective thing that Congress could do would be to address the fiscal cliff. And I think you said the sooner we did that, the better. What do you mean by that, the sooner we did that, the better? Mr. Bernanke. One of the issues--and this is not explicitly accounted for in the CBO study--is that, even putting aside the effects on activity of the fiscal cliff, as time passes, as we get closer to the end of the year, we are likely to see increased uncertainty both in financial markets and among people who are making investment and hiring decisions about what programs will be in place, which ones will not, what the tax rates will be, and those kinds of things. Mr. Carney. So certainty and confidence are a big part of that, right? Mr. Bernanke. Absolutely. Mr. Carney. And I know--I am going to try not to ask you to suggest things that we should be doing, because I know you won't answer those questions. But I would like to ask you once to go back to the question that Mr. Capuano left you at, which is really a sense of what ``gradual'' means. Can you describe that numerically in some kind of way, as opposed to prescriptively in terms of policy? Mr. Bernanke. I think there is a range that--people would have different views about whether you should be more proactive or just avoid the cliff. Mr. Carney. Right, right, right. Mr. Bernanke. There is a range of views there. Mr. Carney. So when you say more proactive, in terms of maybe stimulating? Mr. Bernanke. Some folks would want to do more fiscal activity. Mr. Carney. Right. Mr. Bernanke. There are different views. What I am taking here is a sort of do-no-harm kind of approach and say that you just want to avoid the impact of the cliff. Mr. Carney. Have we learned anything from the European response? Have they taken through the requirements that the eurozone have imposed on some of the members' fiscal policies that probably aren't the best? Mr. Bernanke. I think we have learned that sharp fiscal contractions can slow economic activity. We are seeing that in a number of countries. That is not to say that they have any choice. In the case of Greece, for example, they don't have many options about cutting back on their fiscal deficits. But we have seen countries that have very sharply contracted their fiscal positions experiencing recessions at the same time. Mr. Carney. I only have time for one more question. So, two of the big issues that are in our fiscal situation--and you have talked about healthcare spending, that is the biggest part on the spending side, and of course tax policy. Is certainty more important than the underlying policy or as important? The Affordable Care Act was intended and will--projections are it will reduce costs in the long term but will create a lot of uncertainty in the short term. Similarly on tax policy. I see my time is running out. Do you have a thought on that? Mr. Bernanke. Whenever you can have clarity about your policy intentions--and this applies to the Federal Reserve, too--it is going to be better. Mr. Carney. Thank you. Mr. Lucas [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes himself. Mr. Chairman, press reports have indicated--and let's return to Libor for just a moment--that the New York Fed first learned of possible rigging of Libor in 2008. However, when the CFTC announced the enforcement action and the $200 million fine against Barclays in June, they said the interest rate rigging continued sporadically well into 2009. Chairman Bernanke, did anyone at the New York Fed inform the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C., of potential rigging in 2008? Mr. Bernanke. Let me be clear. There are two types of behaviors that the CFTC has identified. One is manipulation of the rate by derivatives traders for short-term profit. That information has only recently come to light; none of that was known in 2008-2009. What the Federal Reserve heard about in 2008 had to do with banks that were members of the panel, the Libor panel, possibly underreporting their borrowing costs in order to avoid appearing weak in the market. This was information that was about that time becoming generally known. There were media reports in April of 2008, for example, talking about widespread chatter in the markets about that kind of behavior. So that was understood, and it was understood that part of the problem was the structural problems with the Libor system. And so, the New York Fed took two kinds of steps. One was to inform all the relevant regulators what it had learned. But it also took steps to try to make improvements in how Libor is collected and calculated. Mr. Lucas. And you can understand the perspective of myself and the Agriculture Committee, since literally thousands of those derivative contracts, which fall under the jurisdiction of the committee, were settled potentially using those what now appear to be rigged rates. The impact is very relevant. So can I take your answer to say, therefore, that someone from the Federal Reserve did, indeed, tell the CFTC about this potential issue in 2008? Mr. Bernanke. Absolutely. As was released in the materials on Friday, the New York Fed made presentations to the President's Working Group, which includes the CFTC, the SEC, the Fed, and the Treasury. It made separate presentations to the Treasury. And it communicated with British authorities about the issues of how to strengthen Libor and address this underreporting problem. Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, with that, surprisingly enough, I will yield back the balance of my time and recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here, Chairman Bernanke. There is so much all of us would like to discuss. As I recall, in the past year since the passage of Dodd- Frank, we can see that major U.S. banks have managed to make themselves profitable again, but really, the scandals still keep coming, and public trust in the integrity of the financial system, I think is at an end. That is why I have been advocating for the swift implementation of the Wall Street reform law, strong enforcement of existing law, and for adequate funding for our regulators. But as I did last week at another hearing of this committee, I just want to remind us all, in just the last 2 years we have seen the robo-signing of foreclosure documents, the robo-signing of credit card judgments, billions of dollars of put-back lawsuits over mortgage-backed securities, the failure of two major Futures Commission merchants, municipal bond bid rigging, alleged energy market manipulation, money laundering now for drug cartels, the losses of the ``London Whale,'' and the bungling of the Facebook initial public offering. And this is just a partial list. And it is capped off by what might be the most far-reaching scandal of all, Libor manipulation. One commentator, Andrew Lo, a professor at MIT, has noted that this Libor fixing scandal dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of the markets. I guess in all of this, let me just ask, as it relates to Libor, what are you going to do about primary dealers who we find have been involved in manipulating the information in order to look better? You have that responsibility; you determine, do you not, who the primary dealers are? Mr. Bernanke. We determine who the primary dealers are. We don't necessarily regulate them. This particular issue is now under heavy coverage by the CFTC, the DOJ, the SEC, and authorities from other countries as well. And I am sure that they will follow through with every company involved. Ms. Waters. As I understand it, the New York Fed may not regulate primary dealers, but they do set out business standards and technical requirements for primary dealers, and they can fire a primary dealer at any time. Are any going to be fired, do you know? Mr. Bernanke. If there are questions raised about the integrity and competence of a primary dealer, yes. It could happen, certainly. Ms. Waters. Okay. That is good to know. Let me just segue into something that perhaps you had not anticipated. Out in California, we have a number of cities that are filing bankruptcy, and a lot of this has to do with the housing crisis and the problems that they have. San Bernardino is one, of course, and Stockton, and some time ago, it was Vallejo. In San Bernardino, they had some interesting discussions about how to use eminent domain in order to keep people in their homes. From what I can understand, they would access the properties through eminent domain, and then they would pay the fair market value. But the fair market value is different than the mortgage agreement because they are now underwater. They would keep people in their homes and, of course, try and stabilize the housing. But what do you think about that? Mr. Bernanke. I think it raises legal issues that I am just not qualified to comment on. It is a very difficult set of problems that they are facing, and I am very sympathetic to their attempts to try to address it, but whether this is a good vehicle or not, I am not qualified to answer the question. Ms. Waters. Do you believe that these cities are taking action because they are just basically tired of waiting for us to solve the problems of the housing crisis? There is one thing that I think you were involved in with the OCC, and it had to do with the mitigation process for dealing with some of the issues of getting information out to some of the people who had been harmed and getting them compensated up to $125,000, I do believe, but only 8 percent returns? Former Chairman Frank and I have met with the OCC, and they talked about coming up with new outreach-type programs, et cetera. Have you been in discussion with them about what you could do to do better outreach and get more people involved and responding? Mr. Bernanke. We have. We have been trying really hard, done a lot of advertising, Web-based, social-media-type communications. We have taken the GAO commentary and tried to incorporate that. But, most recently, I understand, we are trying to make a more community-based approach to reach out to churches and African-American groups and the like and trying to get their assistance as well, as well as home mortgage counselors. Yes, we are trying to address that. Mrs. Biggert [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Chairman Bernanke, could you just talk a little bit about the differences between insurance and banking, as the Federal Reserve looks at it? Mr. Bernanke. Sure. For insurance companies that either own a thrift or should one become designated as a nonbank systemically important firm, the Federal Reserve would have consolidated supervision over those insurance companies' responsibilities. We recognize there are differences between insurance companies and banks, so a couple of differences in the way we would manage that. One would be, of course, that the insurance companies themselves, the insurance subs, will continue to be, as I understand it, will continue to be regulated by the State, State authorities, and be subject to the insurance company regulatory and capital requirements. The Federal Reserve will impose capital requirements at the holding company level to make sure that overall the company is well-capitalized. But even in doing that, we will try to take into account differences between insurance companies and other types of firms. So, for example, there are certain types of assets that insurance companies have, like not fully guaranteed accounts that some of their customers might have, and we are looking to give those different capital treatments. So there will be a lot of similarities, admittedly, at the holding company level, but we recognize insurance companies have both a different composition of assets and a different set of liabilities. And appropriate regulation needs to take that into account. Mrs. Biggert. Okay. I think that there have been other Federal regulators that have either signaled or taken action to allow State insurance regulators to continue to do their job, regulating insurance. There is concern, I think, with the Fed plan that, how are you going to relate to the companies that maybe have only 1 percent or 2 percent of their assets as part of a thrift or a savings and loan, when 98 to 99 percent of their assets are in insurance? Mr. Bernanke. As I said, we will try to take into account the differences. Insurance companies have many of the same assets that banks do and, therefore, share the credit and market risks that banks have. And so, for those kinds of assets, it could be appropriate to have similar capital requirements for insurance companies and banks. But in those cases where there are distinctive differences, then I think we need to try and accommodate that the best we can, consistent with the Collins Amendment and other rules in Dodd-Frank. Mrs. Biggert. That brings up--you have the June 7th 800- page proposed capital rules that intend to regulate insurance companies as well as the banks. So do you think there will be a good distinction between those two? And I am also concerned about the fact that it is a 90-day comment period. Do you think that will be extended for some of these companies to have to come in and really-- Mr. Bernanke. If the comment period is insufficient to get a full response from the public, we certainly can consider extending it. Mrs. Biggert. Okay. And there is a question then of, do you think that the Federal Reserve has the statutory flexibility to recognize the insurance risk-based capital and leverage requirements? There is the Collins Amendment, and then there is Dodd-Frank, which I think goes through with that. But does the Collins Amendment then prevent a difference? Mr. Bernanke. My understanding, and I will be happy to follow up with you on this, is that we have to meet certain requirements at the holding company level. So at the holding company level, there will be a lot of overlap between the regulation of a bank holding company and a thrift holding company. But again, my understanding is that we will not try to impose bank-style capital requirements on individual insurance subs, and that those can still be subject to the State capital requirements. Mrs. Biggert. Okay. I thank you. The gentlelady from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, and thank you for your public service. I would like to note that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its first enforcement action today, ordering a financial institution to pay a fine for what the agency described as deceptive marketing tactics related to credit card products. I wanted to publicly thank you for your leadership and this Congress' leadership on credit card reform, and note that it is good to see that consumers have an agency speaking up and fighting for their protections and financial products. The Libor problem, really, is readily solvable if we use a different index, one that is objective, public, readily verifiable, and manipulation-resistant by any single bank. So I would like to ask you what are your favorite alternatives to Libor? And have you relayed that to Mr. King at the Bank of England? And if so, what was his response? Mr. Bernanke. As I discussed yesterday, I think there still are problems with the current Libor system because it doesn't always reflect an actual market transaction. And the Federal Reserve Bank of New York made some recommendations for reform which have not been fully adopted. So one strategy would be to switch to a market-based indicator. The Federal Reserve has not come out in favor of a specific one. But a number of possibilities include repo rates, the so-called OIS index, and even potentially Treasury bill rates, for example. So there are a number of possible candidates. I have not addressed this issue to Governor King. I have talked to Mark Carney, who is the governor of the Bank of Canada, who is the head of the Financial Stability Board, which is an international body which looks at issues pertaining to regulation and financial stability. And that body is going to be looking at the Libor controversy, implications for financial stability, and possible ways to move forward. So that will be one international effort to look at alternatives. Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Why is the American economy doing better than Europe's? The Europeans seem to be more focused on debt, and working towards austerity, and austerity in their public policy instead of stimulating the economy. And what role do you think stimulating the economy with monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus, what role do you think that played in the American recovery, which is better so far than the European one? Mr. Bernanke. Yes. The U.S. recovery is somewhat disappointing, of course, but it has been stronger than some other areas. In Europe, they are facing a number of challenges, mostly related to the structural problems associated with the common currency and with the structure of the eurozone. So a number of factors contributed to the slowdown in the economy. One of them is the fact that a number of countries, which are under a lot of pressure from markets, are severely cutting their fiscal positions. And that is contributing to the slowing economic activity. But in addition to that, their banking system is having problems, and credit has become very tight in some countries. Moreover, all of the issues related to the possible default of various countries, or the risks borne by financial institutions have led to a lot of volatility in financial markets, which has also been a negative factor. So they really are facing a lot of headwinds there, and it is quite a difficult situation. Mrs. Maloney. I am especially worried about the efforts of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to limit the Fed's ability to use monetary stimulus. Long-term unemployment is really high, and I am worried that we don't have enough tools to combat it. And don't you believe that the long-term unemployment would be even higher if the Fed had raised the Federal funds rate and not purchased government securities? Mr. Bernanke. I am quite confident of that. We haven't had the recovery we would like, but certainly, monetary policy has contributed to growth and reduction of unemployment in the last 3 years. Mrs. Maloney. And I would like to hear your comments on positive signs that you see in the latest U.S. economic data. Mrs. Biggert. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Bernanke. I note housing is one area. Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Welcome back, Chairman Bernanke. It is good to have you here. In your testimony, you cited low demand and high inventory for houses throughout the country. In California, it is kind of an interesting process. We are kind of going the other way. Inventories overall in California are down to about 3.5 months, down from 4.2 months in May, which is a really good trend. In fact, in the Inland Empire, which was hit very, very hard, San Bernardino County, it is actually down to about 40 days. It is nice to go into a real estate office and actually see lists of buyers instead of lists of homes for sale. What do you think we can do to keep this trend going? Because I don't believe the economy is going to come back until the housing market recovers. Mr. Bernanke. As you say, there is improvement in the market as a whole, and particularly in some areas. I am not sure that this low inventory situation will persist, because there is a pretty big backlog of houses that are in the foreclosure process that may come onto the market. And that will be an issue. We provided a working paper earlier this year that discussed some of the issues in housing. For example, in order to keep down that inventory, one strategy is to undertake programs that convert REO, real estate owned by banks and other owners, to rental properties. And the GSEs are running a program like that, which has some promise. It is important to do what we can to avoid foreclosure, obviously, where it is possible. Or if that is not possible, to give people a way, through deed-in-lieu or short sales or other mechanisms, to get out of their home and to sell it and to avoid a lengthy process. Access to credit remains a very significant problem. It is hard to point to specific things that can be done. But one thing I think is promising is that the GSEs, as I understand it, are considering changes in their practices that will reduce the concerns that banks have about so-called put-back risk, so that when banks make a mortgage loan and sell the mortgage to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, there is a substantial risk that if the mortgage goes bad, if there is any kind of problem with documentation or anything else, that they will get that mortgage back and be liable to the-- Mr. Miller of California. I like that. Mr. Bernanke. There are a number of areas where we could hope to see improvement in the housing market, but unfortunately, there is no single solution. And to some extent, just economic recovery more generally is going to drive the housing market. Mr. Miller of California. There is a concern about what we are doing. FHFA has developed a pilot program with Freddie and Fannie to sell their REOs on a bulk sale. You saw that program, they are doing a pilot program on it. Mr. Bernanke. That is right. Mr. Miller of California. And the problem I have with that is they are doing it in the Inland Empire, which has a 40-day supply of homes. When they sent the letter out, there was a group of us in our area, 19 of us who represent that region, who wrote a letter objecting to it. And they said, well, these houses have been on the market. When we saw the data, 70 percent of the homes have never even been listed. And my concern is, why would we do that? If we bulk sell them, we are going to sell them for less than market value. If we sold them in the traditional foreclosure process, you would get more money listing with a REALTOR and selling them out. But we are actually going to cost the taxpayers money starting a pilot program in a part of the country that has a very low amount of homes listed. Why would we do that? It doesn't make any sense when we should--I agree there are probably some parts of the country where maybe there is a high inventory level and you need to bulk sale them out. But why would they pick the one area of the country that is starting to recover? Maybe it is because the house prices are so depressed. But you are bulk selling them out, costing taxpayers money. Why would we do that? Mr. Bernanke. I am not sure it is costing taxpayers money. I hope not. I think one of the reasons they would be doing that is in order to make REO to rental programs work, you want to have a large number of houses close together, foreclosed homes close together so that they can be managed by rental-- Mr. Miller of California. But if you sell them off in bulk, you are going to sell them for less than market value, the way they are selling them off. Mr. Bernanke. But more quickly and with less cost. Mr. Miller of California. But if you have a 40-day supply of inventory, my argument is that there are probably places where 7 months is considered normal. We have a 40-day supply of inventory. And Freddie and Fannie are bulk selling those through FHFA at a reduced price, when those houses could be listed and sold. Mr. Bernanke. That is a good point. I hadn't heard that before. And I would urge you to talk to Ed DeMarco about that. Mr. Miller of California. I did. And the response from Mr. DeMarco was that, ``We are afraid we would lose credibility by not selling them now that we have bid them out.'' And my response was, ``I am concerned with losing credibility by costing the taxpayers money selling homes in a region that has no inventory and an abundance of buyers.'' I just think that is something somebody should talk about when you are in meetings. Mr. Bernanke. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Miller of California. Thank you, sir. Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome, Chairman Bernanke. It is good to have you here. I want to talk about what I think is the core of our issue now dealing with especially unemployment, and that is a very serious paralysis of partisanship that has basically hijacked this Congress. And I say that because I think that you all have done pretty much what you can do. You have reached in the Fed your point of what you call zero lower bound, where you can't go any further with your interest rates. And everything that we have done here, we talked about, for example, the policies that we made, nowhere is the economy more impacted than health care. The whole issue was the rising costs of that. We passed a health care bill. And that bill has a direct impact on unemployment and employing people. For example, in there we have the Medicaid expansion, which will bring in another 18 million individuals. And most importantly, it will have an extraordinary impact on job creation, maintaining jobs, and other jobs. Most critical, you find on basically a partisan basis, already those States that have the most to lose, that have the highest rates of uninsured and have the highest rates of unemployed are saying they are going to turn away billions of dollars in Medicaid that will go directly to their largest employers, which are the hospitals. One-third of all the hospitals in this country are facing closure, which means rising unemployment. And so there has to be--what message can you give the Nation and the Congress here on how we can get our act together and how devastating this partisanship--just we will deny the unemployed, we will deny this in these States strictly because of partisanship. How serious is this to this country? Mr. Bernanke. Unemployment is an enormous problem. It represents not only wasted resources; it represents hardship. And given the large number of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more, there are a lot of people who will never really come back to the labor force, or if they do, they will have lost their skills and will not be as employable as they were before. So the costs are very, very high. The Federal Reserve is, as you say, doing our best to try to help the economy recover and put people back to work. But monetary policy isn't a panacea; it doesn't have all the tools that could be used. And so, I would urge Congress to work together as much as possible to address this. It is a very serious problem. And it is not just a temporary cyclical problem, the long-run unemployed could affect our labor force for many, many years because of their loss of skills. Mr. Scott. Let me get to the other point because I know my time is shrinking, thank you very much. But let's talk about what we can do in the future. We have sequestration coming up, for example. How can we formulate our policy dealing with sequestration to shorten and lessen the impact on unemployment? Let's look at defense, for example. We have 50 percent arbitrary we are going to cut. Can we not have some indication of how devastating this is going to be in employment, particularly with many of our defense industries which have huge, huge plants, with huge numbers of employees? And what impact will sequestration have not just in cutting our defense capabilities, but in employment? Can we not have a direction or leadership where we would be very careful as we move forward with sequestration to make sure we have less of an impact of how that will put people out of work? Mr. Bernanke. I cited the CBO number of 1\1/4\ million jobs from the fiscal cliff would be lost, or fewer created than otherwise. So there is a big employment implication. On the other hand, it is very important not just to forget about the long run, we have to make sure we are addressing our long run issues of fiscal sustainability. And so, what I have been recommending is a combination of more moderate fiscal retrenchment in the shorter term to respect the fragility of the recovery, but combined with serious and credible actions, to address fiscal unsustainability in the longer term. Mr. Scott. And very quickly, the other shoe that we have that will drop is the ending of the Bush tax cuts. What is your advice on which way we should go in that direction as far as having a lessening impact on unemployment? Mr. Bernanke. I can't advise on specific tax cuts and spending. But in looking at the package overall-- Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Bernanke. --I am concerned about the contraction of the entire program. Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Garrett. I thank the chairwoman. So ever since 2009, we have been hearing that the Fed is sort of out of bullets. But we could also argue that you and your colleagues have been pulling the trigger quite a bit since that time, whether it is with 3 rounds of quantitative easing, with 6 years of interest rates being almost 0 percent, balance sheet still stands almost triple its normal size. It is obviously safe to say that we have been, we are, and we continue to be in uncharted territory. Now, through all this, you normally come and you defend yourself on these policy decisions by arguing the counterfactual, that is to say, that things could have been a lot worse had we not taken these actions. But before we go down that line of argument, or discussion, you have to think about where things really are. With the recent decline in interest rates where we are in the market today, is that the result of what the Fed is doing or is that the result of the marketplace? The real return out there on a 10-year Treasury is roughly negative 5 percent, right? Is that a function of the Fed's action keeping the rates down or is that a function of the market in general? And if it is an action in response to the Fed, then the question would be, what is the appropriate rate that we should have in the market? And if the appropriate rate is where the Fed is trying to keep it and where you have said you are going to keep it for the next foreseeable future, the next couple of years, down near zero, isn't that actually discouraging investment by individuals and businesses at the same time? If I know as a businessman or individual that the interest rates are going to be this low for this year and next year and beyond, maybe I put off those investment decisions to a later date. So some of these decisions may actually have a negative side to them. In other words, maybe there is a counterfactual to your counterfactual. Maybe there is a risk inherent in the policies that you have taken. And I will close on this: The Fed involves itself all across the economy. You fix the Fed's fund rate; you manipulate the yield curve via Operation Twist; you essentially monetize our national debt; you manipulate the mortgage market along with every other part of the credit market via quantitative easing; you attempt to manipulate the stock market and the prices there through the portfolio balance channel; you involve yourself in every aspect of the economy. There is not a price in the marketplace that is not subsidized in one sense or another by the Fed. Yesterday at the hearing--I listened to the tape of the hearing--you said you had more bullets that you could pull. You said that there is a range of possibilities, buying Treasuries, MBS, using a discount window, employing additional communication tools, commit to holding rates below even through 2015 or beyond, cutting the rate the Fed pays on excess reserves. So these are all additional bullets that continue to push us into uncharted territory. What I would ask is, is the Fed being as transparent in all these things in going forward on the downside of all these, on the downside of accommodation? Particularly, what I would say is the failed accommodation. How does QE3 create a single job? Yes, it props up the commodity markets; yes, that is great for those in the commodity market area. But if I am on the other side of that trade, if I am the individual like an airline that is buying these commodities, I may be laying off people. Is there enough transparency in that area to say what the downsides are in the failed portions of your policies? Mr. Bernanke. Some years ago, we provided research that showed, based on models and analysis, how easing financial conditions, lowering interest rates--and by the way, it is minus half a percent I think, not minus 5 percent-- Mr. Garrett. Yes, minus .5 percent. Mr. Bernanke. --increases spending and investment, increases the incentive for spend and invest, and that provides extra demand and helps the economy recover. It is certainly not a panacea, it is certainly not without costs and risks which I have talked about, and I agree with that. But I think on the whole, there is evidence that it has provided some support for the recovery. It is not the only solution, but it has had a positive effect. Mr. Garrett. My time is limited. I would ask if you could come back to us and just indicate, have you made any mistakes in any of these areas, where you would have liked to seek other actions that you should have taken? And I will ask maybe if you could give us that in writing. But I will just close in the last 30 seconds on the situation with regard to Libor. I saw your testimony in the Senate hearing yesterday. In essence, you said you knew about it in 2008. You said the entire world and the media knew about it in 2008. You sort of point the finger over at London, and said you made some suggestions over to them what they should be doing on this. Isn't there some action both the New York Fed and you could have taken? Aren't there some recommendations that you could have made for Dodd-Frank over the last 4 years when that was coming forward? Isn't there something that you could have done as far as regulations, perhaps with regard to how banks report their information to Libor, perhaps with regard to the requirements in our banks here, perhaps setting up firewalls with regard to the offices within there that they--couldn't you have done something? Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Garrett. Can I have an answer to what he could have done? Mr. Frank. The rule has been that you ask a question. We have people-- Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Watt. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And let me do three things quickly. First of all, I want to apologize for not being here for your testimony, Chairman Bernanke. Unfortunately, I had a hearing on intellectual property in the subcommittee on which I am the ranking member, in the Judiciary Committee. So, I couldn't be here. Second, I want to follow up on Congresswoman Waters' encouragement to be more aggressive in the outreach on these real estate settlements. There is money there. It seems to me that there is a built-in disincentive for the lenders to go and find the people because they get to keep the money if they don't find the people. So somebody needs to be more aggressively reaching out, even to the point of sending people door to door to find these folks who would be eligible to get the relief. So I want to encourage that. And we will do more encouragement offline on that. Third, I want to pick up on Mr. Garrett's point and take the counter position. I want to express my thanks to you for shooting all of these bullets. Because if I hear what Mr. Garrett is saying, he would prefer that the Fed be as dysfunctional as Congress has been, and that nothing be done, and that the economy just be allowed to collapse, which I think would have been the result had not the Fed taken some significant actions. And I think you point that out on the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6 of your abbreviated testimony when you say the important risk to our recovery is the domestic fiscal situation. As is well known, U.S. fiscal policies are on an unsustainable path. Development of a credible medium-term plan for controlling deficits should be a high priority. And you paint, unfortunately, kind of a doomsday scenario if Congress does not act because--and you lay out the significant dilemma that we are in, because we need to be spending short term to stimulate the economy, keeping tax rates low short term to stimulate the economy, yet we need to be more fiscally responsible. You can't both spend and keep taxes low without increasing deficits. That is unsustainable. And I guess I am expressing my belief that Congress doesn't seem to be up to that task. Lay out that scenario. I don't want to get you in the politics of this, but talk to us a little bit more about the delicate balance short term about what we ought to be doing versus long term about what we ought to be doing. And maybe at least edify the public about how difficult these choices are going to be, both short and long term. Mr. Bernanke. Certainly. They are very difficult choices. If Congress only allows the fiscal cliff to happen and doesn't do anything else, it is actually kind of counterproductive because higher taxes mean that people won't have income to spend. Less spending by the government means layoffs in the defense industries, for example. So it will slow the economy and actually mean that tax revenues will be less than expected. And the benefits in terms of deficit reduction will be smaller than really was anticipated. And we will see a slower economy and less job creation. At the same time, if you simply push everything off without any additional comment, then there is the risk that people will become concerned that Congress has no intention ever of addressing the deficit. And you could see, for example, concerns in the bond market about that. So it is a difficult balancing act, but it is a recommendation that has been made not just by the Fed and the CBO, but the IMF and pretty much every sort of nonpartisan fiscal authority, which is to mitigate, moderate the extent of the fiscal cliff in the short term, avoid destabilizing the weak recovery, but at the same time, work together to establish a framework and a plan, and a credible plan that will, over time, over the 10-year window, and even beyond that, will bring our fiscal situation into balance. Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And Chairman Bernanke, I want to thank you. Your office was very responsive the other day when we sent you a letter in reference to the Libor issue. I think we will be sending you an additional letter today or tomorrow. One of the things that is kind of interesting to me, 16 banks, I think, report in the Libor dollar index, it would be difficult for just one bank to influence that index, wouldn't it? Mr. Bernanke. Generally, yes. Mr. Neugebauer. So it had to be more than one bank underreporting or not accurately reporting their borrowing. Would you say that is correct? Mr. Bernanke. The reason the banks, some of them apparently underreported during the crisis, was not to affect the overall Libor rate necessarily, but rather, because these numbers are reported publicly, they wanted to avoid giving the impression that they were weak and others were strong. Mr. Neugebauer. But if one bank is reporting differently than the other ones, obviously it wouldn't influence the overall index? Mr. Bernanke. If they were in the top four or the bottom four, they would be cut out. Mr. Neugebauer. That is right. So when the Fed first learned about this, you had some correspondence with the Bank of England, but three domestic banks were involved. Did anybody say, I wonder if anybody else is doing this? Or was all of your focus just on Barclays? Mr. Bernanke. Our focus wasn't on a specific bank. Barclays is, after all, a British bank, and not supervised by the Federal Reserve. Our focus was on the general phenomenon. And the New York Fed did two basic things: to inform the relevant regulators here and in the U.K. about this problem so that they could look at it; and to try to address the structural problems in Libor, which were, as you were indicating, incentivizing banks to lowball their rate information. So it was approached as an overall problem. Mr. Neugebauer. Are you familiar with the term ``price fixing?'' Mr. Bernanke. Of course. Mr. Neugebauer. So price fixing, if a bunch of us are in the carpet business and we all get together and we decide that we are going to sell carpet at this price, then that is price fixing, right? Mr. Bernanke. Yes. Mr. Neugebauer. So if money is a commodity and pricing of money is a function of that, wasn't this almost price fixing on Libor? Mr. Bernanke. It may be. But as you pointed out, there are two issues. One is did the individual reporting, misreporting affect the overall Libor? And it may or may not have. And I think that needs to be investigated. The other is that, in some cases, there were no transactions taking place. So during the crisis, there were mostly just overnight transactions, and yet the banks were asked to report what they would have to pay for money a year out. And so a question is whether or not they were, in fact, misreporting or whether they were simply shading their estimate in some way. So I think there is a question--I think the details need to come out. And we don't have enough details yet to know whether this was deliberate price fixing or whether there was another interpretation. Mr. Neugebauer. I think the thing that is kind of alarming to some of us is the fact that given how widely used that index is throughout our economy, from just about every area of the financial community, that I felt like the New York Fed's response was a fairly lukewarm response to if, in fact, somebody was manipulating this rate, that could have huge implications. Now, it depends obviously whether you would have benefited from that or if you were penalized from that, whether you were on the buy side or the sell side. But can you explain why you thought--why the Fed thought that wasn't a big deal? Mr. Bernanke. I am sure that the Fed thought it was a big deal. The information was widely known. It was reported in the press. And the British Bankers' Association is not subject in any way to U.S. policy. So it was hard to directly affect the calculation of Libor. But surely, it is a very big deal. It affects lots of different financial contracts. And as I mentioned in my comments yesterday, I think that one of the bad effects of all this is that it is going to further erode confidence in financial markets and in financial instruments. Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Chairman Bernanke. Mr. Bernanke. Thank you. Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, Chairman Bernanke, for being here today. I would like to yield most of my time to you, because I have something that I would like for you to respond to. I find that we have some very credible people who make some incredible statements. And one of the statements that causes a good deal of consternation is that we are now doing worse than we were in 2009, that the economy is in worse shape today than it was in 2009. Now, I can give my opinion on it, but I don't think that it will have the impact that a person of your stature, your standing would have. And I am begging that you, if you would, juxtapose the auto industry with the auto industry today with 2009, financial services, lending in general. Just please, if you would, so that we can bring some clarity to what I believe is an incredible statement. Kindly do so. Mr. Bernanke. Nobody is satisfied with where we are today, of course. But there certainly has been significant improvement since mid-2009, when the recovery began. We have had economic growth now for about 3 years. The unemployment rate has fallen from about 10 percent to about 8 percent. Obviously, not as far as we would like, but still in the right direction. Banks are much stronger and have much more capital than they did a couple of years ago. Manufacturing is much stronger, has improved considerably, particularly in autos, as you mentioned. We have seen important steps in the energy area in terms of U.S. production and conservation. The housing market, which was completely dead in 2009, is still not where we would like it to be, but is moving in the right direction. So clearly, there has been improvement. I recognize that many Americans will still feel that the situation is not satisfactory, but it is going in the right direction. Mr. Green. Would you say that it is not worse than it was in 2009, Chairman Bernanke? Mr. Bernanke. Clearly not. Mr. Green. It is not currently? Mr. Bernanke. Not by all the criteria I just mentioned. Mr. Green. Yes, sir. And I just want to restate a couple of things. We were about to lose the auto industry. We now have the auto industry, and it is coming back. We were about to lose a good portion of the financial services industry. Larger banks were about to go under. They are now stabilizing. AIG was about to go under. We lost Lehman. And it now is better than it was, obviously not what it was prior to the decline. And it just amazes me that credible people will make such incredible statements. And that adds fuel to this flame of confusion that is engulfing us. People want to have someone with credibility to speak truth about the conditions. And it is just amazing that this line of logic seems to have some degree of credibility in certain circles. Now, if you would respond, just for the record, is the auto industry in better shape now than it was in 2009? Mr. Bernanke. It is producing more cars and is more profitable, yes. Mr. Green. Is the banking industry in better shape now than it was in 2009? Mr. Bernanke. Yes, it is more profitable, has more capital, and is making more loans. Mr. Green. Is the economy in the main in better shape now than it was in 2009? Mr. Bernanke. Again, it is not where we would like it to be, but many parts of the economy have improved, yes. Mr. Green. All right. Now, my next line of questions will have to do with something that we refer to as structural versus cyclical. You can't solve structural problems if you use cyclical solutions, generally speaking. And it is difficult to ascertain what amount of what we are dealing with is structural as opposed to cyclical. Do you have some sense of how much of what we are trying to, for want of a better term fix, what we are trying to fix is structural as opposed to cyclical? Mr. Bernanke. That is widely debated, and it is hard to know for certain. But I guess my view, and the view of many economists, is that a good bit of our unemployment problem, for example, remains cyclical, which means it can be addressed in principle by monetary and fiscal policies. But structural problems are probably increasing, and in particular, the very long-term unemployed, the problem is, the risk is they will over time become unemployable, and that they will contribute therefore to a structural issue. Mr. Green. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Mr. McHenry for 5 minutes. Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Bernanke, thank you so much for being here today, and thank you for your service to our government and our people. I certainly appreciate that. Now, with quantitative easing, do you think there is a limit to how much quantitative easing that can be used? And do you think we are approaching that limit right now? Mr. Bernanke. There is certainly a theoretical limit, which is the fact that the Federal Reserve can only buy Treasuries and agencies, and moreover, quantitative easing typically involves buying longer-term Treasuries and agencies, as opposed to bills, for example. So there are finite amounts of that available. And moreover, beyond a certain point, if the Federal Reserve owned too much, it would greatly hurt market functioning, which would have the effect of reducing the efficacy of the policy. So I wouldn't say that we are at that point yet, but ultimately, there would be some limit to how much you could do, yes. Mr. McHenry. So there is some limit? Mr. Bernanke. Yes. Mr. McHenry. But we are nowhere close to approaching it is what you are saying? Mr. Bernanke. I don't have a number for you. But we still have some capacity at this point, yes. Mr. McHenry. Okay. Now, there is a separate question. You said that you have a target inflation number, sort of ideal. And what is that? Mr. Bernanke. Two percent. Mr. McHenry. Okay. Now, would the Fed be comfortable with an inflation rate a little higher than that? Maybe 3 percent? Mr. Bernanke. I don't know what you mean by ``comfortable.'' If for whatever reason, for example, in the last few years, we have seen oil price shocks which have driven inflation up to 3 percent or higher, that is not a good situation. And it is our objective in that case to try to move inflation gradually down back to 2 percent. So if you are asking would we target 3 percent, would we seek to get 3 percent, the answer is no. Mr. McHenry. Are you more comfortable with 3 percent or 1 percent? A little higher or a little lower? What are you more comfortable-- Mr. Bernanke. I think both of those are concerns. Both are concerns because 3 percent, of course, means that we are moving towards a more inflationary situation, but 1 percent is closer to the deflation range, which is also not healthy for the economy. Mr. McHenry. Okay. The reason why I am trying to get at this is because there has been a lot of discussion that with a little higher inflation rate, a belief--now, I don't subscribe to this--but a little higher inflation rate that it, de facto, reduces debt burdens and perhaps could spur spending and the perception, more of the perception of less debt and actually the impact of it. And that might spur the economy. It is more consumer spending. Do you think that is desirable or not desirable? Mr. Bernanke. I recognize that some people would advocate that we set an inflation target, say at 4 percent, and maintain that for a number of years. I don't think, first, that we could do that without losing control of the inflation process. Second, I am very skeptical that it would increase confidence among businesses and households and increase economic activity. I think it would create a lot of problems in financial markets as well. So I don't think that is a strategy that has a lot of support on the Federal Open Market Committee. Mr. McHenry. So a lower inflation rate, the target inflation rate of around 2 percent, the Fed would have more control than perhaps a higher inflation rate? Mr. Bernanke. Because we have maintained inflation near 2 percent for a long time, and there is a lot of confidence in the financial markets that the Fed will keep inflation close to 2 percent. Mr. McHenry. Okay. So it is confidence, but also Fed capacity? Mr. Bernanke. The issue is that we currently have very well-anchored inflation expectations. People are strongly accustomed to 2 percent inflation. If we were to say 4 percent, first would be the issue of getting there. Could we get there? And could we get there with some accuracy? But beyond that, people would say, if they said 4 percent, why not 6 percent, why not 8 percent? So in the short run at least, it is not at all clear that people would be confident that this new target of 4 percent would, in fact, be stable and sustainable. Instead, they would wonder where inflation is going to be in the medium term. Mr. McHenry. So right now, in order to--with the Fed contemplating more easing, and then you also have the question of liquidity in the marketplace, making sure that Fed policy enables more liquidity in the marketplace, we also see Europe running counter to that, right? The woes of Europe are making the markets less liquid. Does the Volcker Rule--do you have a concern about the timing of the Volcker Rule that would rein in liquidity? Mr. Bernanke. We are paying close attention to issues related to market liquidity and market making, which are exempt activities under the Volcker Rule. In any case, the Volcker Rule doesn't come into effect for a couple more years. So I would say that is not a first order issue right now. Mr. McHenry. Thank you. Chairman Bachus. I am now going to recognize Mr. Perlmutter. And let me say this, we have a hard stop at 12:45. So if you want all the time, you can have it. Mr. Pearce would like a minute, if you can work that out. Mr. Perlmutter. I will be quick. Chairman Bernanke, thank you for being here, thank you for maintaining a steady hand through all of this, whether it was kind of the collapse on Wall Street or some of the clashes that we have here in Congress ideologically that don't give the economy some of the fiscal tools that I think would also help continue to improve our economic situation. And so I want to ask a couple of specific questions and then see where we are. Can we talk a little bit about Basel III for a second, because it came up in a conversation yesterday with a medium-sized bank that we have back in Colorado. In Dodd-Frank, we established some lower limits as to a lot of the regulations that go in place. And I think either it was a $10 or $15 billion-sized institution, and if you were above it, you had many more things that you had to do, whether it is dealing with derivatives or the like. And as I understand it now, these Basel III regulations, that could potentially become worldwide- type regulations, are going down to a half a billion dollars, $500 million. And it would take into consideration lots of smaller banks. And they are fearful that this will really dry up their capital and make it very difficult for them to continue to operate. Can you comment on that? Mr. Bernanke. Yes. Certain parts of Basel III are being proposed to go down to smaller banks, some of the risk weights, for example, some of the basic capital definitions. And the idea here is to try to make sure that small banks as well as large banks are well-capitalized. But I think it is important to note two things. First, many of the aspects of Basel III do not apply to small banks. They simply are--first of all, things like derivatives books and things of that sort just aren't relevant to small banks. And there are other rules such as the international leverage ratio which applies only to the largest internationally active banks. Mr. Perlmutter. But I want to impress on you, if I could, I would like you to take this away, say you are a smaller Colorado bank, you are generally going to have loans on shoppettes and real estate and some home loans and some small business loans. And in my opinion, it wasn't the smaller banks that led us into the deep recession that we suffered in 2008 and 2009. And I would just ask you, as Chairman of our central bank, to make sure that we don't penalize--we were pretty tough in some of the Dodd-Frank regulations that we passed to make sure that the banking system had some restraints, didn't just run amok, that there was capital, and there were certain things that had to be watched closely. But I would ask you, sir, to just keep an eye on that, if you would. My last question, and then I will turn it over to Mr. Pearce, is can you describe for us what has happened with the liquidation of the assets that were in Maiden Lane one, two, and three? Mr. Bernanke. They basically have been sold off, and the Federal Reserve and the government and the taxpayer received all their money back with interest and additional profits beyond that. So it has all been sold back into the marketplace. Mr. Perlmutter. So we pretty much liquidated it all or do we hold any of it? Mr. Bernanke. We have a little bit left, but we have paid off the loans. So we are, from now on, whatever we sell is pure profit. Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. And Mr. Pearce for 1 minute. Mr. Pearce. I thank the gentleman for his consideration. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your service. I am looking at page 4, where you talk about the great risks to us financially. And I assume that is because of their size and because of the underfunding of them. But when I look at that size, I consider the pension systems. And just yesterday, the California pension system said that they only got a 1 percent rate of return. Their projection, in order to be solvent, is up in the 7\3/4\. Maybe just in that one system, the $500 billion shortfall now just on the teachers. And then that is the smaller of the two. Nationwide, maybe a $3 trillion shortfall. I didn't see that, but I do see Spain talked about, and yet Spain is only $1 trillion exposure. Could you kind of tell us what the risk is associated with the unfunded pensions? Mr. Bernanke. Low interest rates do put some stress on pension funds and life insurance companies for the reasons that you described. I think our goal, basically, is to get the economy strong enough that returns will rise and that things will normalize over time. Obviously, pension funds can't be underfunded forever. But if the economy strengthens and returns go back to a more normal level, then these underfunding problems will not disappear, of course, but they will be mitigated. Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Bachus. Thank you. Chairman Bernanke, the committee appreciates your testimony today. And you are dismissed. I am going to ask the audience to remain in your seats until Chairman Bernanke and his staff exit. Mr. Schweikert is recognized for a unanimous consent request. Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to place a letter into the record. It is just some concerns and wanting some additional visibility on the PCCRAs, the premium capture reserve accounts, and where we are going on that policywise. Chairman Bachus. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for Chairman Bernanke, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for Members to submit written questions to Chairman Bernanke and to place his responses in the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X July 18, 2012 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]