To rate increases. Therefore, while reaching the threshold is not necessarily mean we will raise rates. We are confident we will not raise rates before we get to that point. That is providing reassurance to the market. Thank you, and with regard to wanting on a Balance Sheet, you have indicated a willingness of keeping them out of the market. The governor said no one is talking about unwinding or selling securities. Which mean that the feds Balance Sheet to be over 3 trillion for some time. Not necessarily. Ultimately we will stop, and the Balance Sheet will come down. We have been allowing the aties to roll off. A certain point when the economy is strong enough. It does not delay normalization by very much. But you are not expecting the winding down of the Balance Sheet at any time tsoon. The threerect . Part sequence i described you, there again it would not we are not planning at this point to sell any in bs. What we would be doing would be allowing at some point we m to run allowing the off and not replacing them. As long as you continue to hold, doesnt this lead to credit mispricing and investor risk . I dont think so. Particularly when we are winding down. I dont see that there is any real difference between our holding mortgagebacked securities, which is intended to strengthen the Housing Market, and usual Monetary Policy, which lowers longterm Interest Rates through short term rate cuts, which is also intended to strengthen the Housing Market. The Housing Market is always an important channel of mark of Monetary Policy. I do not see there is any significant misallocation going on there. Thank you. Senator menendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I understandanke, this might be her final Monetary Policy report here before the committee before the end of your term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. And i am sure you will miss us, but i want to thank you for your hard work and dedication, and your service to the country, especially during a time of crisis, and i appreciate your service. We seem to be experiencing a trend where our economy and employment are growing, but we have a ways to dig ourselves out of the deep hole caused by the financial crisis. Unemployment is down, but it is still 7. 6 . More than a third of the people who are unemployed ed, whichterm unemploymen is a true crisis for the 4 million individuals and families caught in this situation. And as you have discussed, long term unemployment can have serious consequences that make it harder for people to maintain skills to reenter the workforce. My question is while the economy is recovering, we still have a lot of work to do to get full employment and strong run based growth. Broughtbased growth. Based growth. With core inflation well below the target and weak demand suggesting inflation is unlikely to be up problem anytime soon, isnt it still too soon to nsider policy tightening . Ive distinguish between changing the mix of our tool tools and the overall thrust of Monetary Policy. I agree with unemployment still quite high and with unemployment being too optimistic a measure, given some of the other statistic that youve cited, that both sides of our statutory mandate are suggesting that we need to maintain a highly accommodative Monetary Policy for the foreseeable future, and that is what we attend to do. Intend to do. But i think we will be able to maintain that high level of accommodation through rate policy and by holding a large Balance Sheet, and in making that transition to a different stage in that office in the process, we are intending to keep Monetary Policy highly accommodative. As the reserve has engaged in measures to strengthen the economy, some critics have argued any growth would be artificial or that low Interest Rates and cheaper credit might lead to financial instability or asset bubbles. If investors make riskier investment in order to reach for the yield. In the current environment, isnt weak demand a greater concern . If consumers are pulling back on spending because of high debt burdens and underwater mortgages and businesses are holding off on investing because of weaker consumer demand, doesnt that change relative cost benefits and risks of different monetary policies . It can. On the first point about artificial growth, during the 1930s, they held that recession was unhealthy. They purged the evils out of the system. I do not think we hold that point of view anymore. We think our economy is producing below its potential. What Monetary Policy is trying to do is return to its potential, and that would be a real andan achieve. Sustainable growth that we can achieve. Given recent experience, we want to be careful to what is going on and pay close attention to these issues. The relationship is a complicated one. On the one hand, low rates can lead to reachforyield and other risky behavior. We are trying to address that through regulation, through oversight, and through monitoring, and that is our first line of defense, but you point out it is not a simple relationship. A weak economy is bad because it means weaker credit quality, less lending opportunities, more defaults, and our strategy is to try to focus on inflation and unemployment using Monetary Policy and to pay close attention to Financial Stability and use regulatory tools we have. I appreciate that. There has been a great deal said of expansionary policy. Austerity. As i am looking at what is happening in europe, im not sure that the measures taken under that guise produce the economic results we like to see and the consequential Human Results we have seen in europe, and i do not want us making thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. We were just talking about these meetings about like drinking dayold coffee. I do not really have any questions. I am here to thank you for your service. I know we have had our differences on some issues. I appreciate the way you handled the crisis. I think our country was under extreme duress. I do not know how many people could have handle that crisis in the way you did, so i want to thank you for that. We have had discussions about quantitative easing. I know we have had differences. I know there is an industry of folks who watch every word you say, and people are doing calculations as to buy this instrument or that, and i know you have to be cautious about what you say sometimes, but this is a setback. I know there has been hyperactivity of the fed with the fed almost acting like an for congress, which is had very bad behavior for a long time. Our inability to do the things fiscally and in other ways that would stimulate our economy. And i think you are well aware of those. You do a pretty decent job of staying away from it, although sometimes i wish you would weigh in more. I wonder if you have any parting comments. I wonder if you have any comments about over time because of the hyperactivity the fed has been engaged in. In some ways congress has been so feckless, if that is any concern to you, and is there any similarity to a person who knows they need to do certain things, eat right and exercise, and instead relying on the fed for amphetamines and other things the economy needs. As you contemplate those, i want to thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship and whatever happens. I wish you well. Thank you very much for those comments, senator. On hyperactivity, i think we learned we did not have the right tools. We did not have a way to it address a failing Investment Bank that were not create a huge amount of bad effects on the financial market. We did not have appropriate oversight and the shadow of the banking system. There were a lot of weaknesses. In our oversight, regulatory system, and in our response tools to the crisis. It sometimes seemed frenetic because the fed was trying to improvise in many cases. I think we made some progress in setting up a more orderly framework. I hope that is the case. It is true Monetary Policy has werried a lot of the burden. Are more than happy to share that burden more equally with fiscal policy and other policymakers, but i recognize it has been a difficult time politically for people to come to agreement on some very important issues, and i dont think you mentioned the enabler idea. I do not think it is my place or the Federal Reserves place to try to force congress to come to any particular outcome. It is this congress that is our role is to take what congress is given and how best to meet our mandate Given Congress actions. I do not think we should threaten congress with higher Interest Rates. I know you operate under our mandate. I would think most people would the fed is there and in some ways accept the cover of us and for our inability to act responsibly. I think that goes without saying, doesnt it . You can see that our acting alone is not producing the kind of results that we would like. Growth is going in the right direction, unemployment is going in the right direction, but it is a slow process. Monetary policy is not a panacea. There is still room for congress to address these problems. Senator reed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I commend you and thank you for your service to the nation. I witnessed your innovative and forceful approach to problems that were potentially devastating to the economy. I think through your service, we avoided a much worse situation, and i thank you for that. One of the things, reflecting back, there were a few governors in the fed who were talking about the housing ,ubble as the next great crisis but it did not get the traction. Perhaps not identically, but in a similar vein, some of your colleagues are not talking about the huge growing student debt that could have macroeconomic effects, slowing down home purchases, slowing down what we a storm what we assume with the normal course that you buy a home, you settle down, etc. But i also think it another way, underscoring another huge problem in the economy, which is the growing inequality of income. Our solution is education. There are reports from Georgetown University there is a 5 million projected gap between Jobs Available and skills available to fill them. As we increase borrowing, that i think will cut down on opportunities for a lot of people. Can you comment on the potential crisis in student debt, its macroeconomic effects and whether we do not provide support that this could be the next big problem that we face . This should acknowledge the ability to build your own Human Capital to grow your education should be a good thing. There was time when a student was unable to finance education. The fact we can do that is good for the economy as well as for individuals. The amount of debt is large. It is over 1 trillion at this point. I think it is not particularly likely to cause any sort of sharp instability. It has a couple of consequences. To the extent there are people who have taken out a lot of debt and they are not finding opportunities, over time they will not be able to buy a home and do other things they would otherwise be able to because they are paying off the debt. The answer is to have a Strong Economy that provides job opportunities, which i am sure you are trying to do too. The other is we need to make sure students are better informed about labor opportunities and different options they have. We know some of the private sector universities, online universities, which do not have good graduation or placement rates, people still borrowing. I do not want to step back from doing whatever we can to give young people the skills that are appropriate. This growing inequality in income in the united states, does it pose economic and social risks, and how do we deal with it . Isit is a tough problem. It not restricted to the united states. It is a global phenomenon. It has and going on for a long time. There are a number of factors. One of the most important is that the new technologies we are skillwhat is called biased, that they favor the most skilled workers, and they reduce opportunity for people of medium or low skills, particularly with those income position with the labor force, so i do not have an easy answer. Related to your question about the student debt, i think focused skill enhancement, some people would be better off working to a job in industry where there is an understanding in advance that this is what is needed. Community college prepares those kinds of courses. Some more focused job oriented training for students might be helpful. This is a longterm trend. I do not have an easy solution. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i too want to thank chairman bernanke for his service. We had our disagreements over the years, but not without, on my part, a great deal of respect for the way you have approached this work and the work you have done. I have a couple of questions. One has to do with efficacy of there are ae easing. Number of very thoughtful folks that have done analyses that suggest that the benefits of the quantitative easing we have had might be quite modest, and specifically, i think the suggestion has been that conventional understanding of the transmission mechanism of the increase in Household Net Worth to Consumer Spending would suggest a very modest increase to gdp that is resulted from the pretty significant increase recently in Household Net Worth. Even if you attribute all of that increase to the fed, which is questionable, and your own previous question, you acknowledge the nature of the impact Monetary Policy has on Economic Growth might be a matter of timing rather than a net increase. It might not increase economic if thety in total. Magnitude of the benefit has been very modest, and at that, it might just be a shift in timing any way, that would suggest pretty modest benefits, and yet the costs and the risks keep mounting. In my view, the risk of asset bubbles, mispricing assets, the risks of whether or not we will have an orderly exit my question would be how to you quantify benefit going forward, and do you attempt to quantify the risks of what you have done . Yes, that is a good question. There is a very large literature and academic within Central Banks trying to figure out the limits of quantitative easing. It is quite difficult to know for sure, but the evidence is while this is not as powerful a tool as ordinary Monetary Policy, that it does have meaningful impact on jobs and the economy. Since 2008 we have had times when we have you come more concerned about inflation. Qe has provided a boost to go i dont want ton overstate it. There is a lot of work, and the preponderance of the work is quite meaningful. In terms of timing, it is true that no Monetary Policy can do very much about the longterm growth of the economy. But in a situation where we are well below that potential, if we can get back to that potential more quickly, that is a net gain that is enjoyed by the economy. In terms of the risk, i hav identified in speeches and other places some of these risks. As i said in our statement, that we look at this carefully. I think the one we have paid most attention to is Financial Stability, and we have tried to increase our monitoring, and there is also risks both sides because if the economy does poorly that create risk. Let me acknowledge this is an issue that is important. We believe the first line of defense should be monitoring, regular, and other similar tools, but we do take into effect, take into account, sorry, these risks when we debate our Monetary Policy. Do you attempt to quantify wer is it subjective . Try to qualify it quantify it. It is very difficult to know what the size of the risk is, but what we do is that we do a lot of work, both qualitative and quantitative, trying to measure for example, we might be ,ooking at covenants on loans and whether or not those covenants are becoming less restrictive, which is a branch which is subjective suggestive or poor underwriting. They can those so understand where they may be sectors where Financial Risks maybe ill thing and try to gauge those. Thank you, i have other questions, but my time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to schumer. Thank you as well, mr. Bernanke, and i went to echo the views of many of my colleagues for your service. Your quiet and strong leadership has been instrumental in keeping our economy from falling into an abyss and repeating a great depression, and we are on the path to turning the economy around. My view is 2014 and 2015 will be stronger in large part because the Building Blocks you put into place, even if you are no longer notirman of the fed. Prejudging anything, of course. You have been as clear as i think you can be that the timing and pace of any timing and tapering of your asset purchases will be dependent on financial condition. That is logical. In june, the committee predicted Economic Growth would grow, but Economic Data has been mixed. With a decent job numbers numbers, but many signs of weakening growth. The baseline for your june outlook was worse than we first thought. Our firstquarter gdp average so the economy is worse than you thought in june, but the markets are of the belief that you are still said to be tapering. If the economy did not change, with the fed announcing . With the fed the announcing a moderation in the pace of its out of its assets . Youve often said that asset purchases would continue until the fed sees financial government and the economic outlook. Does this change your outlook . Can labor markets continue to so first about september 18, and about the labor markets. First about the dimmer 18, about the labor markets. June was only a few weeks ago, so i think it is way too early to make any adjustment there have been data points that have been mixed. It is way too early to make a judgment. We are looking for a pickup as the year progresses. Our theory of the case, if you will, is that one of the reasons the economy has been so slow in the early part of 2013 is because of fiscal factors. It is hard to judge how long they will last, but as the economy begins to move beyond that and fiscal strength becomes more pronounced, you should see a pickup in growth. The september 18 deadline is not immutable . You are going to look at the data. We are going to look at the data, and it is going to depend whether we the improve it. Does the weakening data changer outlook with respect to the labor market . We want to see improvements, but we want to see that form primitive continue, you need to have a broaderbased growth. Of the conditions i described, one is pickup in growth. Which will be sufficient to provide continued do you think we could be on a path to improvement labor market even with this relatively weak growth in terms of outlook . It is possible. It has only been a week, and we have new data. My second question is when you might end asset prices altogether. The minutes of your last meeting said that about half the participants said it would be appropriate to end asset purchases this year, yet you said you expect asset urges us to end sometime in the when youf next year. Currently anticipate unemployment will be down around 7 . The level of unemployment you say represent the amount of improvement that would warrant this policy. Do those other members have a different definition of substantial improvement in the labor market . There seems to be some disparity between the other members and if you are not there come next year, there is worry. Do they think unemployment will be 7 this year, or do they have different assessments about relative cost and benefit . There are different perspectives. They could see a wind down because they are optimistic me juste economy. Let assure you that we have a very careful discussion at the meeting. A gove what is called round where every person including the nonvoters gets to express for several minutes their view on policy, both current and prospective. And the general scenario, which i described in my press conference, is broadly supported by people on the committee, including both voters and not voters. That is good to hear and give senator coburn. I appreciateke, the service that you have given our country. We have nobody to compare it to because we have never been in the situation we are in before. You have done significant work, i have apreciate it. Couple of questions in terms of your balance with your mandate both in terms of inflation and employment and growth. Concernse things that me is since 1980, we have change the way we measure inflation 20 times. If you use the same measure of inflation that we had in 1980, our inflation rate would be over 8 right now. And the other thing that concerns me is median Family Income in real dollars at the same as it was in 1989. So if i had a criticism of anything you have done in the last few years, it would really go along in line more with senator corkers thoughts, we have let you down. The kindergarten of congress has let you down by not doing these things to create the confidence, to create the certainty in the Business Community that would allow the significant capital sitting on the sidelines to be invested, which would create some of the growth that you were hoping to do. For that i apologize. Would you care to comment, since in your testimony, inflation is under control, but the average american over the last 10 years has seen significant inflation, and in the last few years, has seen significant inflation in the things that really matter. Let me talk about the cost of an education. Transportation, electricity, rent, food, bus out of what we have done, not intentionally, we have got a commodity bubble in many areas. Would you comment on changin metrics that we use for inflation as well as maybe what we could have done looking backwards that might have accentuated and augmented what you have done . Inflation statistics are calculated by the bureau of is madeatistics. Which up of highly qualified professional economist. There is no partisan influence gri. Efforts is to make the Inflation Numbers more accurate. Waserms of changes, there a Bipartisan Commission on inflation measurement a few years ago, which concluded that the official Inflation Numbers overstated, not over not understated inflation. So some of the changes they have recommended have been included. So there is a dissension between prices being high and prices being rising. It is true that gas prices and food prices, all these prices relative to peoples wages wages are not going up much. That is right, so the cost of living is going up it is not going up, it is high, it is not going up. Real wages have been going down because even though inflation is very low, wages have been growing slower than inflation. So Discretionary Income has decreased, so Consumer Spending is not rising at the rate at which you would like to see it. That is true, but that is not an issue of inflation, that is an issue of real living standards, and that has a do with the productivity of the economy and dissolution of and compared the fed cannot do a whole lot about that. So i would respectfully disagree that inflation is badly under measure. I think professionals are doing as good a job as a can to measure inflation, and if you look at a lot of prices, while they may be high, they are not much different from a year ago. That is what inflation is about, the rate of change over time. In terms of what congress can do, i think an effort to focus more on longerterm would be rather thanive. Putting so much of the tax increases and spending cuts and a frontloaded way, would have been more helpful. If congress had created a certainty in the longterm, especially with our entitlement programs, the effectiveness of some of those things you have done with Monetary Policy might have been greater. Certainly. Thank you. Senator brown. To why, mr. Chairman. Chairman bernanke, thank you for services. We all mean that. And thank you for the new rules on capital standards you have issued. I urge you to hold fast on them when he megabanks fight to weaken those standards. I hope you will do that. Some financial analysts suggest we should not get ahead of in our financial regular sugared on monday, governor tarullo said i think it is very dangerous as a must try to characterize fossil agreements of the ceiling, not the floor, so for us in the united states, those of us who are charged with Financial Stability of the united states, need to make the judgment as to what levels of capital will most ensure Financial Stability in the country without unduly affecting the flow of credit. Even since the publication of our proposed rig, ive had calls from my ramparts around the world heard that its really interesting, and theyre saying to me the reasoning about this, how are you thinking about it, explain to me more what you 3 is inadequate. What i hear governor cirillo saying is that he says we should do what we think is best for our Financial Stability, and if we lead by example, the rest of the will follow. Do you you agree with governor cirillo . Tarullo . Nor cirill wifi certainly agree with the first part. I agree it is a floor, not a ceiling. These are made right unanimous agreement. We are prepared to do whatever additional steps are needed to make our Financial System safe. I do not know if all countries will follow us, but there are countries that have fought hard for this and have taken additional steps to strength in their Banking Systems, and we have a leadership position, but i do not get will be universal. I think we will see different responses. Most important will follow . I do not know if they will theyow the same things. Have the same key financial sectors, which recognize is important to have stability, and in some cases the things are bigger than their economy. They have been particularly willing to consider additional steps. We should not shrink from doing the right things . The other countries may or may not follow. We should do whatever we can to make sure the financial thank you. Safe. It is bank earning season again, and isthat megabanks are doing quite well, yet they continue to claim that regulations, impending regulations are killing them. Financial time, banks have spent a lot of time, energy, and money warning of the residual ill effects of ramping up relation, but since the crisis, international regulars have kept demanding more capital, including a surcharge for the bigger banks. Lenders have doubled their capital levels as a result, including the new basel three target. Yet, where are the ill effects . The best of them continue to set new profit records with every earning season, warnings of kalimba of calamity look more and more holidalow. The debate reminds a that when we think about costs, we as policymakers, when we think of costs and benefits, industry only wants us to think about costs to them. Steel companies dump waste into our rivers, and then they argue it will be costly to clean it up. That entire human costs to the minors and children who get sick. Those who believe in the society with rules understand auto safety might cost Car Companies more in seatbelts and other safety features, but these save the lives. The same thing with banking regulation. It might cause managers a little bit more and smaller bonuses and maybe even dividends, but it will help prevent a repeat of what we had five years ago where the cost obviously shifted to the broad public, and Retirement Savings and lost jobs, and every way imaginable. If these are a costs of a saver Financial System, are they worth it . The crisis was a waste of unsafe practices pose a risk not just to themselves. And setting policy, we should look at not just the social costs but also the cost to the firm, thats what we are intending to do. A means of the bonuses are smaller and the dividends are less than the earnings reports to the banks are not quite up to what they were this quarter, which was pretty lucrative quarter for them. That is the price we should pay we shouldociety pay as a society . We should be looking at things that affect the economy more broadly. But i certainly agree that, again, given the enormous cost of the crisis, that strong measures to prevent a repeat are obviously well justified are you concerned that these higher capital standards will result in less credit available . No, i am not concerned about it. We have done some analysis of that. There is not much evidence of that. Theres not much downside is you said that higher capital there is a potential problem with rules, doesnt mean less credit available . If it does not mean less credit available, theres no real downside for Strong Capital the only downside i can think of is that credit flows if ks are finding themselves finding a very costly to make loans, and credit may start flowing through other, less regulated channels, no have to be monitored but you are not implying at all that we are there yet, even close to that situation with capital standards. No, were not there yet, but we have to watch the Banking Systems and other parts of the tagging system and make sure that risks are not being offloaded into other parts of the system. Ui thank you for your generosity of time. Thank you, mr. Chairman i certainly appreciate the questioning of senator brown and chairman wernick e thank you for being here and taking time. And chairman bernanke. Thank you for being here and taking your time. I think you answered the question. I was going to ask the question of why we came to basil 3. As opposed to a former fdic chair who wants thats presented to be closer to 8 , we have some are on your new one high as 15 . I was looking at some insight as where we came to the basal three capital rates, and it appears the answer may be risks, and less you have more to add to it. We have a program for building capital. I described part of it, which was basel three itself, which tripled the amount of highquality capital. Then the surcharges, then the rage ratio. In addition, we are looking at things like capital charges for lesale funding thomas if wholesale funding, if firms rely on less reliable wholesale funding, and the possibility of requiring large firms to have unsecured senior debt in their capital structure, which would also provide some buffer in the event that the firm fails. So we are in a variety of ways trying to build up the buffer that these large firms have. Limit change the topic earthquake onto housing. Let me change the topic row quick onto housing. We have had 300,000 people in las vegas receive foreclosure foreclosed on, but steve notices. Over 50 of the homes are underwater. I know you have played an Important Role in trying to reverse this situation. What are we doing wrong, and what can we do as congress to help move and change the situation we have in some of these other states . I think from Congress Point of view, getting the Mortgage Financial situation working better in terms of creating that rule so there is greater access to credit and more people can buy homes, because the solution is to find a demand side so it will support prices and help us get out of the housing problem we have. I wasnt here earlier for discussion of reforms. I know the house rolled up there is yesterday. Do you have a preference . I think it is time to move forward. Your insight on government involvement of Mortgage Securities . I think a key issue is going to be not so much making mortgages cheaper but making sure there is a backstop or situations where the Financial Markets are in distress why they were recently. If the government is involved, i think it would be important to make sure the government is appropriately compensated. Secondly that firms that are securitizing hold enough capital to protect the taxpayer from losses. If it is done it would be very alpful. If you come to solution that involves the government role. Let me talk about one other topic. Sorry to jump around so much. We had gold prices that almost 2000 an ounce, it has dropped almost 600 an ounce, trading at 1275, somewhere around there. Give the insight as to what haveterm impact this would at the wretched back. Gold is an asset people hold as disaster insurance. They feel if things go badly wrong at least they will have me gold in their portfolio. Is that an accurate feeling . It is not all that accurate. A lot of people hold gold as inflation hedge. The perception is you have a hard asset that will protect you in case of some major problem. I suppose one reason gold rises are lower is people are less concerned about extreme outcomes. Therefore they feel less need about the particular outcome. Psychologically what do they feel about the direction of the i think psychologically the gold price going on is not necessarily a bad thing. People are just less concerned about really bad outcomes. Nobody really understands gold prices, and i do not intend to understand it either. Think you for your service you everes. Much. Senator warren. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for your service during hard times. The biggest banks in the country have reported huge profits over the last couple of years. Just this week, they reported. Ome staggering numbers wells fargo profits jumped 19 from last year, Jpmorgan Chase profits jumped, and citigroup rockets jumped 42 . Some reports have indicated that a big part of those problems have come from the banks trading notvity, and other words, from banking, but from trading on wall street and elsewhere. These you concerned that biggest banks are loading up on big risks again, or is there another explanation for this spike in profits . Just say that we are quite aware of these portfolios, and we are addressing them in at least two ways, more than two, really. One of them is that we just finalized new Capital Requirements that banks have to hold against these assets for sale, these securities. Which should provide protection. We have done stress tests where we assume that the summer 2008 type of financial shock hits, and so there is a huge drop in asset values, and we stress tested banks to see if they had enough capital to cover, protect themselves against big losses in their securities. The other thing is, of course you know, were working hard with our colleagues to put the volcker rule into place, and that will restrict proprietary trading. Let me just say, mr. Chairman, the question im trying to ask about is whether this indicates they are loading up on risk, and i very much appreciate that what you were telling me about are the ways we are trying to regulate the risks when the banks take it on. Maybe i could ask this slightly differently yesterday, secretary treasury jack lew said if we get to the end of this year, and we cannot with an honest, straight face say that we have ended too big to fail, were going to have to look at other options. With the secretary of the treasury . I dont know about the timing. Maybe i would take another year from now. But i have said to you in an earlier hearing that there is a strategy. Dodd frank laid out a strategy. Basel three provides Additional Support and capital, etc. , but if those things do not make us comfortable about the status of these largest firms, yes, i do think additional steps would be appropriate. Than we need to look at others thats. As you know, ive introduced as well as senator mccain, another tool in the toolbox to deal with too big to fail. I think at least now weve got some time on this. The secretary of the treasury says by the end of the year, he say maybe a year longer, but we have got to keep this under examination. Fair enough . Yes, i think we obviously need to look at all tools. I think there is probably more scope for capital. If we are not comfortable with the status of these firms. Know, theough. As you Federal Reserve and the sec announced last january that they were stopping their investigation into the systemic foreclosure fraud, and it has reached its settlement with the largest Mortgage Services in the country. Sec last week, the announced that 52,048 just in massachusetts received checks so far under the settlement, and an aggregate total of 41 million in compensation, or about 800 a family. ,hat 800 a family in a state massachusetts, with medium, ome is 324,000, 500 324,500, that is about. 2 of the Purchase Price and the average home of the commonwealth of massachusetts. It is my job to look out for the families in massachusetts, including helping them get basic information about whether settlements made on their behalf by the government are fair. To do that, six months ago, i started asking for basic documents about the investigation, and to see what the foreclosure Fraud Investigation had uncovered. How many people had lost their chance to save their home, just really how bad the damage was. So far, the fed in the occ has disclosed very little of what ive asked for, so the question i have is how do people i represent in massachusetts who believed they were cheated, or the 4 Million People who received checks around the they know that the payments they are receiving and the occthe fed Wont Disclose details about what they uncovered in the investigation . Know, we stopped the investigation well before all 4. 2 million borrowers were analyzed, so we dont have that information for everybody. But we do have it for some folks. Were looking to see if we could find a way to get that information to the individuals who did four whose files were evaluated by the independent consultants. Good. So were talking about getting that information to them and releasing more information about what you did fine in the aggregate . Yes, we hope to have a report on this whole thing within the next couple of months that will lay out basically all the information we have. Some of the things that you have requested, frankly, we just did we collect or whatever, but will try to provide as much transparency as we can. I would be very grateful for that, mr. Chairman. You know my concerns in this area generally that if the regulators are not aggressive enough, if they dont require admission of guilt, if they never take large Financial Institutions to trial, then the resulting settlements are too weak. So i know you appreciate the slap on the risk on the wrist is not enough, and if the occ and the fed are confident that these are good sediments, i think it helps everyone. So thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. , people could pursue this further if they wish. I hope that by revealing misinformation, they will be able to to better evaluate whether or not that is appropriate. Thank you. Senator crapo has a brief statement. Yes, thank you, mr. Chairman. I have a number of additional questions, but we are coming up against a vote right away. So chairman bernanke, if it is ok with you, i will submit these questions to you and ask you to respond later. The questions i have among others are some further inquiries about the shortterm interestrate policy at the Financial Stability oversight council, particularly in relationship to nonbank, the system systemically important Financial Institutions. As you might guess, on gse reform, i would love to get some ourther information from year perspective on that. I will submit the questions in light of the fact that we do have a vote. Thank you. Chairman bernanke, i would like to thank you for your ex ordinary service for your Extraordinary Service and for your testimony. This hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. The House Veterans Affairs house subcommittee Holding Hearing looking at Veterans Administration and Defense Department efforts in a treating items of sexual assault. That is on cspan2 at 10 00 eastern. Although a 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan3, the Bookings Institution holds a forum looking at the nsa david Data Collection and surveillance program. In a few moments, todays headlines, lets your calls and tweets live on washington journal. In two hours, the houses back in session to continue continue consideration of a bill that would eliminate National Education standards from the 2001 no child left behind law, and require each state to develop School Accountability standards. In about 45 minutes, we look at the weeks political stories with the lyrical editor of the washington times. Stephen dinan will take your questions to the proposed filibuster rules, and limitation to be healthcare law, and congress. , sam stein, of the Huffington Post will take questions. Washington journal is next. Host good morning and welcome to washington journal on this friday, july 19. Student loan Interest Rates will be cut and thomas perez was confirmed as labor secretary. At the white house, president obama touted health care yet today and what the federal law will mean for middleclass americans in his estimation. In detroit, the city has fed