View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

S. HRG. 109–551

NOMINATION OF BEN S. BERNANKE

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE NOMINATION OF BEN S. BERNANKE, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE A MEMBER
AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
SYSTEM

NOVEMBER 15, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

(
Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /congress /senate/senate05sh.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

26–610 PDF

:

2006

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
JACK REED, Rhode Island
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Staff Director and Counsel
STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
PEGGY R. KUHN, Senior Financial Economist
AARON D. KLEIN, Democratic Economist
JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator
GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor
(II)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

C O N T E N T S
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005
Page

Opening statement of Chairman Shelby ................................................................
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Dodd ....................................................................................................
Senator Sununu ................................................................................................
Prepared statement ...................................................................................
Senator Sarbanes ..............................................................................................
Senator Dole ......................................................................................................
Senator Johnson ...............................................................................................
Senator Martinez ..............................................................................................
Senator Carper .................................................................................................
Senator Bennett ................................................................................................
Senator Reed .....................................................................................................
Senator Hagel ...................................................................................................
Senator Stabenow .............................................................................................
Senator Allard ...................................................................................................
Senator Bayh ....................................................................................................
Senator Schumer ..............................................................................................
Senator Menendez ............................................................................................

1
2
4
65
4
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
13
34
41
66

NOMINEE
Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be a Member and Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ..........................................
Biograhpical sketch of the nominee ................................................................
Response to written questions of Senator Bunning .......................................

14
53
67

(III)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

NOMINATION OF BEN S. BERNANKE
OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE A MEMBER AND
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005

U.S. SENATE,
URBAN AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–106, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
COMMITTEE

ON

BANKING, HOUSING,

AND

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY

Chairman SHELBY. The hearing will come to order.
This morning, we are meeting to consider perhaps the most important nomination that ever comes before this Committee, that of
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System. This will be the first
time in nearly 20 years that the Congress has had a new nominee
for its consideration. President Bush has made a superb appointment in naming Dr. Benjamin S. Bernanke to serve as a Member
and as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
The Federal Reserve would have a big enough job to do if it were
tasked with serving only as a central bank for the United States.
However, as the United States continues to lead the world economy, sound stewardship of the Federal Reserve affects the global
marketplace. The Federal Reserve also shoulders the responsibility
for supervising some of the world’s most complex financial holding
companies. In addition, as technology continues to evolve, the Federal Reserve must adapt and innovate to provide an effective payment system for our economy.
Chairman Alan Greenspan has been the face and the voice of the
Federal Reserve for over 18 years. During his tenure, the U.S.
economy and the financial system withstood a number of significant challenges, including the stock market crash of 1987 and the
Asian debt crisis. His tenure also includes the 1991–2001 economic
expansion, the longest in American history. These are among the
reasons Chairman Greenspan is considered by some to be the
greatest central banker of all time.
Stepping into Mr. Greenspan’s shoes will be a tremendous challenge. While it may seem a daunting task to follow as distinguished a Chairman as Alan Greenspan, we should be mindful of
two things. In 1987, many observers were concerned about whether
(1)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

2
an economist name Alan Greenspan could successfully follow in the
wake of the vaunted Paul Volcker. We now know how the experiment turned out. Each person who sits in the Chairman’s seat has
the opportunity to make that position his own and to become a
leader in his own right.
Second, many have observed that President Bush has selected
the best possible candidate to serve as the next Federal Reserve
Chairman. Dr. Bernanke may well be the finest monetary economist of his generation. With his distinguished career as an
academic, he is eminently qualified and extremely well-versed in
monetary policy issues.
Furthermore, Dr. Bernanke is more than an esteemed academic.
Dr. Bernanke served with distinction as a Member of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This experience gives
him an inside knowledge of the Federal Reserve and also financial
markets. In speaking out on a variety of important economic
issues, he earned tremendous respect and confidence from policymakers in this country and around the world.
Dr. Bernanke’s other professional experiences are also significant
here. Prior to becoming a Member of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve, Dr. Bernanke served as Chairman of the Economics Department at Princeton University. Before arriving at Princeton, Dr. Bernanke had been an Associate Professor of Economics
and an Assistant Professor of Economics at the Graduate School of
Business at Stanford University. His teaching career also included
serving as Visiting Professor of Economics at New York University
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Bernanke also served as the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He
received a B.A. in economics in 1975 from Harvard University
summa cum laude, and a Ph.D. in economics in 1979 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Bernanke, this Committee knows that you have an important
job in front of you. We are also confident you have the right set
of skills to lead the Federal Reserve System.
We look forward to hearing your statement today and the interesting discussion that will follow.
But I want to say at the outset that we have seven roll call votes
scheduled beginning around 10:45, so we are going to continue this
hearing until probably 10:55 or something like that, and then recess until 3 o’clock and go forward, if it is okay with you.
Senator Dodd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr.
Bernanke, welcome to the Committee. We had a chance to chat on
the phone the other day, and this is a challenging opportunity the
President has given to you. I know you must be grateful to him,
and we are looking forward to your testimony here today.
As my custom is, I will withhold, as I am sure most of my colleagues will, probably, any final judgment on your nomination until
we have completed the process here. But I want to acknowledge at
the outset that the President, in my view, has made a superb decision in nominating you. Your academic credentials, as the Chair-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

3
man has pointed out, are tremendously impressive, if not unsurpassed.
In fact, I made the comment to the nominee coming in, Mr.
Chairman, that when overlooking the list of the number of publications the nominee has authored over the years, I suppose we
should be thankful he is not a nominee for the Supreme Court of
the United States. We would spend a year examining his written
credentials from those publications.
The chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, as the Chairman has
pointed out, is not just another Government job, obviously. It is, arguably, the most important position in our country with respect to
our Nation’s economy. The decisions made by the Chairman and
his colleagues on the Board affect every single citizen in a very profound way. The Federal Reserve is responsible, as we know, for setting interest rates and ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions. It represents U.S. interests and negotiations with
foreign and international regulators, and its Chairman bears the
responsibility for protecting consumers from unscrupulous, illegal,
and predatory financial practices.
As we have seen repeatedly over the years, the opinion of the
Federal Reserve Chairman on economic policy matters goes beyond
the institution’s official jurisdiction and carries an enormous
amount of weight that can have significant implications. One need
look no further than 2001, when your predecessor Alan Greenspan’s support for the President’s tax cuts, however qualified it
may have been, was perceived as a major cause for their enactment—which has led to deep budget deficits, I might add, and the
widening inequality of wealth in this Nation.
We know from previous experience that the position of the Federal Reserve Chairman requires several important qualities, such
as intelligence, experience, and good judgment, most importantly in
the face of a crisis. The markets need to know they can trust the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and developing this trust requires an understanding of the need for independence from the
President and the Administration, particularly from the one run by
the President who has appointed the Chairman, and especially in
your case, Dr. Bernanke, from an Administration in which you are
still currently employed as a spokesman for a specific economic and
political agenda.
Successful Chairmen have also been able to balance the dual
mission of the Federal Reserve as embodied by the Federal Reserve
Act, ‘‘to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.’’
In the 1990’s, we had a remarkable period of both price stability
and high employment. Obviously, that was due in part to technological innovation and the development of the technological sector.
But there is little doubt that the preconditions for economic growth
were laid earlier in the decade when a newly elected Democratic
President joined with the Republican-appointed Federal Reserve
Chairman to pursue a commitment of fiscal responsibility and effective monetary policy. The result was a reduction in poverty
rates, an increased standard of living for the middle class, and the
first budget surplus in three decades.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

4
So, Dr. Bernanke, I look forward to discussing with you today
these issues and how we can return to achieving the results that
we had only a few years ago. And, again, I welcome your nomination. I congratulate you on having received it and look forward to
working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sununu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to have you in front of us, Dr. Bernanke. I get
the sense that you have put on some a charm offensive over these
past weeks, and I imagine you received a number of awards in your
academic career. But you probably were not voted the most likely
to conduct a charm offensive on the U.S. Senate. Your reviews of
the various meetings you have had with Members I think have
been very positive, and it is just a credit to your professionalism,
in part, because it is not an easy task to come before us and to be
prepared to answer all these questions. People want you to weigh
in on all kinds of policy issues, some of which you are probably
qualified to comment on, some you may not be.
As the Chairman and others have pointed out, you do come with
very impressive credentials, a great academic and educational
background, although I think having been educated at both Harvard and MIT, it is probably a sign of having a conflicted personality to a certain degree.
We do not have the facts in front of us to support the conclusion
that you are the most qualified or finest economist of your generation. But for the purposes of this hearing, I am willing to assume
that and to work from there.
I look forward to hearing from you about your approach to monetary policy. Price stability is absolutely critical. I think it is due or
it has resulted in large measure to the great performance of our
economy cited by Senator Dodd. And while everyone expects or
hopes for a pretty smooth transition, there are differences in approach that you will take relative to Chairman Greenspan.
Your support for greater transparency and your success in advocating for real changes that result in a more open Fed deserve
great commendation and recognition. I will be interested to hear
more about the progress that can be made along those lines and
more about any changes that might be made to improve the clarity
in the approach that the Fed takes to targeting inflation.
So, I certainly wish you well and look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing in a very
timely manner. I join my colleagues in welcoming Dr. Ben
Bernanke to the Committee. He is no stranger. He has been here
before, both to be a Member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and then to be Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

5
Of course, he has now been nominated to a 14-year term as a
Member of the Board of Governors and also nominated to be the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a 4-year
term.
As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, we are going to reconvene, because of this series of votes that are scheduled, again in the afternoon.
Chairman SHELBY. Three o’clock.
Senator SARBANES. Yes. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which
established the Federal Reserve System, set the 14-year terms for
the Members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I
think that clearly reflected the intention of Congress at the time
in enacting this legislation to place the Federal Reserve Board and
its individual Members beyond the reach of any given Administration and the political pressures of the moment.
Actually, the 14-year term is the longest we give to any official
in the Government other than the lifetime appointments for members of the Federal judiciary.
I think it is fair to say or it certainly has come to be the case
that the credibility of the Federal Reserve rests in large part on
broad confidence in its independence in the judgments it makes,
and obviously, if that confidence were to be undermined, the stature of the Board would be gravely diminished, and that in turn
would have serious consequences, I think, not only for our national
economy but also, indeed, for the world economy.
So, obviously, we are looking forward to hearing from Dr.
Bernanke about this important role of the independence of the Federal Reserve in rendering its judgments.
My colleague Senator Dodd has made reference to the other
major point I wanted to make, and that was the Federal Reserve
Act provides as the goals that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee
shall maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest
rates. And this is conveniently referred to as ‘‘the twin mandates
of the Federal Reserve,’’ addressing both maximum employment
and stable prices. That is another issue that I look forward to exploring with Dr. Bernanke in the course of these hearings.
Actually, we had to contend for quite a while with this nonaccelerating inflationary rate of unemployment, something that Chairman Greenspan, to his credit, never accepted. That was the theory
that if the unemployment rate got down to a certain level, beyond
that you would inflation; and, therefore, as it approached that unemployment rate, the Fed would have to start raising interest rates
to cool off the economy, even if we did not see manifested inflationary signs. So it was a preemptive strike against inflation, but
it also, of course, ended up being a preemptive strike against employment, if it had been followed.
Fortunately, that was not the case, and we have seen in recent
years that we have been able to go down—and we are now at 5 percent, but we have been able to go down below that to a 4-percent
unemployment rate without an inflationary problem. And I am

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

6
anxious to explore that with Dr. Bernanke as well, since I think
jobs is a very important purpose of economic policy.
Let me just add one other dimension which is not often talked
about when we talk about the Fed, and that is, the Board has responsibility, supervisory and regulatory authorities to assure the
safety and soundness of the Nation’s banking and financial sector
and protecting the credit rights of consumers. In the area of consumer protection, the Board has broad jurisdiction and authority to
implement regulations for a whole host of consumer laws: The
Community Reinvestment Act, Truth in Lending, Truth in Saving,
Home Mortgage Disclosure, Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and a number of others
as well. And while public attention is focused on the Board’s monetary policy responsibilities, I think it is important to recognize its
jurisdiction and authority with respect to these regulatory issues.
The Board can play a very significant role in improving consumer
rights and enforcing consumer protections.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I notice that the papers this morning are
already setting out an agenda. I would just quote one paragraph
to give one example of it. ‘‘If confirmed, Bernanke will take over
the Fed at a moment of rising economic unease. The U.S. trade and
budget deficits are soaring. The once-blistering housing market
may be cooling. Rumors continue to rumble through Wall Street of
dangerously overextended hedge funds ripe for collapse. The next
Fed Chairman could face significant challenges, as Greenspan did,
within months of taking office.’’
Welcome to the Committee this morning, Dr. Bernanke.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Dole.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Chairman Shelby. I also certainly
want to extend a warm welcome to Dr. Bernanke, to his family,
and his friends this morning.
This is the most significant nomination this Committee will consider. The role of the Chairman of the Board of Governors holds
great influence over our economy and financial system. The Federal
Reserve is charged with conducting the Nation’s monetary policy
with the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. These goals can at time conflict, requiring a steady hand at the helm to keep us on a track toward
long-term sustainable growth.
Two weeks ago, the Federal Open Market Committee again
raised its target for the Federal funds rate and the discount rate
by 25 basis points. This was the 12th straight increase in the Federal funds rate. The release noted robust underlying growth in productivity and temporarily depressed output in employment due to
elevated energy prices and hurricane-related disruptions in economic activity. These observations reflect how hard we were hit
this hurricane season, but they also appear to indicate a positive
track for economic expansion in the coming years.
While the outlook is certainly encouraging, I continue to be concerned about the slow pace of job creation, particularly in my State

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

7
of North Carolina. North Carolina continues to experience dramatic
losses in employment, especially in the traditional industries of textile and furniture manufacturing. The national economy may be
trending positively, but we must continue to focus special attention
on the areas where people have lost their jobs with companies that
struggle to compete with the dramatically lower cost structures of
foreign companies.
Congress continues to debate the pros and cons of free trade, and
I believe we must work toward trade agreements that benefit
American workers and consumers and support jobs and growth in
our industries.
During my confirmation hearing many years ago to serve as Secretary of Labor, I spoke about the gap between skilled and unskilled workers. In the changing economic environment, this gap
has widened, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities for
lower-skilled workers. We must do everything in our power to
make sure that these people do not fall through the cracks. As we
discussed in my office, we must focus greater attention on educating our less-skilled workers so they can take advantage of the
new jobs that are being created. To this end, I believe that we
should take steps to improve trade adjustment assistance and continue to make strengthening our community colleges a very top priority.
I also remain concerned, of course, about high energy prices, the
rising costs of raw materials, and the growing size of our trade deficit. In spite of these concerns, however, I have confidence that the
very forces that stimulate economic growth—free but fair trade,
ever improving global communications, higher education, training
for our workforce, and, of course, hard work—these forces indeed
will put us on a course toward great opportunity for North Carolinians and for all Americans.
Dr. Bernanke, as we have all said, has a keen intellect and impressive credentials and comes before us, Mr. Chairman, with an
extensive list of accomplishments, a wealth of experience, and a
reputation for consensus building, particularly during his time on
the Board of the Federal Reserve. And I tend to think that his good
Carolina roots are a great strength as well.
Dr. Bernanke has my strong support, Mr. Chairman, for Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. While I am
sure the Committee does have many questions, I hope he will earn
our swift approval.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Senator JOHNSON. Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes,
I am pleased to be here this morning. And, Dr. Bernanke, welcome.
I congratulate you on your nomination and thank you for meeting
with me this past week.
Today’s hearing is no doubt one of the most important that this
Committee will hold during this Congress. It is not every day that
we consider the nomination for a new Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve. In fact, the last such hearing
was over 18 years ago. Therefore, it is critical that we are thorough

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

8
in our questioning and that we cover a broad range of relevant
issues.
The Fed is not only charged with serving as the Nation’s central
bank and lender of last resort, but it also supervises and regulates
banks and, perhaps most importantly, formulates and executes
monetary policy in order to promote stable economic growth, hopefully with an eye toward both inflation and employment.
The Fed Chairman is an influential economic figure. He must be
attuned to the U.S. economy and the world economy. He holds one
of 12 votes and, therefore, must not only build consensus but also
confidence. It is my expectation that the Fed Chair, even when he
is a former White House adviser, refrains from being a cheerleader
for White House policies of either political party and instead maintains the independence and credibility of the central bank through
greater transparency in its decisionmaking.
As my colleague Senator Dodd noted, your predecessor, although
properly credited with a great many accomplishments, has been
roundly criticized by some for intervening in a tax policy debate in
Congress that in the end contributed significantly to a transition
from enormous budget surpluses to today’s massive budget deficits.
It is increasingly apparent how important sound and complementary monetary and fiscal policy is to the U.S. economy as the Federal deficit increases, national savings falls, pensions and Social
Security become less secure, health care costs skyrocket, and energy prices remain volatile.
In addition to the formulation of monetary policy, the Board of
Governors has a significant bank regulatory and supervisory responsibility, including promoting the safety and soundness of the
banking system and ensuring compliance with the Nation’s banking laws and regulations. This Committee continues to hear from
our Nation’s financial institutions about the increased and often
overwhelming burden of bank regulations. It is the number one
concern raised by both small and large banks in my home State,
and I hope that the Fed will pay close attention to this issue. And
while I am interested in your views on rising energy prices and the
impact on the trade deficit, I would also like to hear your thoughts
on the role of consolidated supervision and protecting the safety
and soundness of the Nation’s banking system and the longstanding policy of maintaining a separation of banking and commerce.
Dr. Bernanke, your credentials, both academic and professional,
are exemplary. I appreciate having had the benefit of meeting with
you last week in my office, and I look forward to hearing from you
today as we move forward in an expeditious fashion on the nomination process. Congratulations.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Martinez.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MEL MARTINEZ

Senator MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bernanke, welcome, and it is good to see you back in the
Committee again. I know we have had the privilege of confirming
you on two other occasions, and I want to just extend my congratulations to you for the confidence the President has expressed in you
by naming you to this very significant post.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

9
When we met last week, I expressed my concerns about the rising interest rate environment and its impact on our Nation’s housing market. Florida’s median housing costs have continued to rise,
especially in cities where basic infrastructure is already overwhelmed by population demands. However, employee wages have
not risen in response to the rapidly increasing cost of living. Additionally, the October report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta shows increases in fuel and building supply costs, all of
which will continue to contribute to the rising costs of housing.
We are facing a housing crisis in Florida, and I am afraid it may
get worse before it gets any better, and I do not think that Florida
really is unique to the Nation in this regard. Pockets of Florida are
still recovering from the hurricane season of this year and last, and
we are still assessing the damages from the recent Hurricane
Wilma. According the State, the challenge is always the same: The
lack of housing affordable to working families. Low interest rates
over the past several years have created record homeownership
rates on a national level, but have also encouraged very creative
financing with interest-only loans and short-term ARM’s. Both of
these, and others, make monthly mortgage payments susceptible to
increases in the Federal funds rate for homeowners who choose
these options for financing.
During our conversation, you indicated your commitment to providing more transparency and disclosure to the public to reduce
market uncertainty and encourage investment. You also talked
about increasing financial literacy and how that may help borrowers and lenders understand the implications and risks associated with varying mortgage products. This is something I worked
with very intimately when I served during my time as Secretary
of HUD. I do believe that financial literacy is crucial to today’s consumers.
We also discussed the need to legislate fundamental changes to
the regulatory structure of the housing GSE’s. While we agreed
that these Enterprises play a crucial role in the housing market,
they have strayed from their original mission, which is to focus on
creating housing opportunity for low- and moderate-income families. I believe this Committee reported out a very good piece of legislation in July that would require fundamental changes in how
these Enterprises are regulated.
Before we can move a bill to the floor for full consideration, we
need to also reach some consensus on the issues of portfolio limitations and the creation of an affordable housing fund. I would be interested in hearing your views on both of these two crucial issues.
I look forward to your tenure as Chairman. I do have every expectation of your confirmation and look forward to working with
you in your new capacity, and I again commend you and congratulate you for this fine distinction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Carper.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Dr. Bernanke,
welcome today. I congratulate you on your nomination. Thank you

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

10
for the time that you were good to spend with me earlier this
month when you were visiting in our office.
You are, I think, two for two before this Committee, two for two
before the Senate, and my guess is before we are finished here, you
will be three for three. And given your experience, your education,
your intellect, and, frankly, your demeanor, I think they all combined to prepare you well for the challenges that lie ahead. I would
not underestimate those challenges, and I think Senator Sarbanes
has alluded to them. They are considerable.
I want to return to a theme that a couple of my colleagues have
mentioned, and then I will close, and the theme is the need for
independence. You work for the President. You were chosen by him
to head up his Council of Economic Advisers. You have been nominated by him for this post as well. But when you are confirmed,
as I am sure you will be, it is critically important that you be independent, and I think you realize that. And we are counting on you
to be that independent person.
I thank you for your service to this country and for your willingness to serve, and for anyone in your family who is here to share
you with all of us, we express our thanks as well.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I will save my comments for
the question period.
I join my colleagues, Dr. Bernanke, in welcoming you here and
congratulating you on your appointment. I think the President has
made a superb selection and I look forward to not only voting for
you, but also working with you in the years ahead.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Chairman Shelby. This is
an important confirmation hearing because of the tremendous influence that the Federal Reserve Chairman has on economic policy
in this country and indeed around the world.
I want to welcome the President’s nominee, Dr. Bernanke. Welcome, doctor. We look forward, obviously, to hearing your views on
many issues. Chairman Greenspan will be a hard act to follow and
his successor’s job will not be made any easier by the state of the
economy. Yes, GDP has grown as the economy has been recovering
from a recession in a very protracted job slump, but large structural budget deficits, a record current account deficit, a record low
personal saving rate, rising consumer prices, and sluggish wage
growth, all pose tremendous challenges to setting monetary policy.
Dr. Bernanke is an economist with strong academic and policy
credentials, who has already pledged to maintain the Greenspanera commitment to controlling inflation and providing market stability. And I hope that also means maintaining flexibility in pursuing the multiple goals of price stability, high employment, and
sustainable growth, rather than adopting a rigid adherence to any
predetermined policy rule in responding to changing economic circumstances.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

11
Indeed, a critical question for Dr. Bernanke will be how he would
balance the goals of fighting inflation with allowing sufficient employment and wage growth. These are difficult economic times for
many Americans who are facing stagnant incomes and rising costs
for health care, home heating, and education. We need a Fed
Chairman who will be committed to guiding the economy toward
creating broadly shared prosperity. Strong productivity gains have
shown up in the bottom lines of corporations but not in the paychecks of workers. The typical worker’s earnings are not keeping
up with their rising living expenses, and both earnings and income
inequality are increasing in our economy.
Both Chairman Greenspan and Dr. Bernanke have emphasized
the importance of education and training for increasing opportunity
and reducing inequality over the long-run. But rising inequality
has been a problem for a long time and it is particularly acute now.
Monetary policy alone cannot solve this problem, but I hope the
new Fed Chairman will recognize the critical importance of fostering a high employment economy.
I am also interested in Chairman Bernanke’s views on whether
the budget and trade deficits are dangerous imbalances that pose
a risk to the economic outlook. I hope that we would all agree that
raising our future standard of living and preparing adequately for
the retirement of the baby boom generation require that we have
a high level of national investment and that a high fraction of that
investment be financed by our own national savings, not by foreign
borrowing.
We followed such prosperity enhancing policies under President
Clinton, but that legacy of fiscal discipline has been squandered
under President Bush.
Financial markets will surely hang on the new Fed Chairman’s
words about monetary policy and interest rates, but the new Chairman will not automatically inherit Alan Greenspan’s considerable
influence over a broad array of economic policy. While Chairman
Greenspan’s track record managing monetary policy is very impressive, his role in justifying the 2001 tax cut is problematic and now
we are living with the consequences.
Dr. Bernanke was a respected independent economist long before
taking the position as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers with the Administration. He has spent many years building a
reputation as a politically independent economist, and I hope he
will preserve that reputation if confirmed as Fed Chairman.
One bit of advice, Dr. Bernanke, do not forget what you learned
on the School Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Hagel.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I too welcome Dr.
Bernanke to our hearing, and I look forward to voting for his nomination, and enthusiastically support the President’s wise choice.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and I too will reserve
any further comments to the questions. Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Stabenow.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

12
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Dr. Bernanke. It is a pleasure to have you with us, and
look forward to many opportunities to work with you.
You have heard a lot of important words, transparency, accountability, financial literacy. As the author of the provision on financial literacy and the creation of the new Federal commission, I look
forward to working with you on those important long-term issues
of education and financial literacy.
The position of the Federal Reserve Chairman is vital to the
quality of life of every single American. It affects interest rates on
credit cards, home mortgages, and investments. It impacts the safety and the soundness of our financial institutions and may lend
stability or instability to global financial markets. It is a very, very
critical position. There is a reason why many say the position of
Federal Reserve Chairman is the second most powerful position in
Washington, although some others may want to disagree with that,
but it certainly in terms of impact affects each and every one of the
people we represent, as well as ourselves and our country, in extraordinary ways.
While Chairman Greenspan I believe has done an excellent job,
there is no doubt that you bring an academically impressive record,
and eminently qualified to replace him, Dr. Bernanke. But we have
a responsibility to know your views on growing the economy, as a
number of my colleagues have talked about today, about maintaining an economy that produces good-paying jobs. All of your intellectual horsepower is going to be needed to revive what continues to
be a struggling economy, particularly in the Midwest in our manufacturing economy and in my home State, the great State of Michigan.
Throughout the past 6 months, Michigan has been in an incredible struggle. The high-profile bankruptcies at Northwest Airlines
and Delphi have served to emphasize the lack of job security that
Americans feel right now, and I believe what is happening in
Michigan is very much a wake-up call for the entire country. Many
who have devoted a career to a company are being told that their
incomes are too high, their health insurance is too much, or their
pensions are too costly. Essentially their way of life is being threatened, and the middle class of our country is being threatened.
One by one each of these benefits is being cut back, and if the
employees protest the company threatens bankruptcy and unveils
the specter of using the judicial process to slash labor costs, and
again, the way of life of middle class Americans.
A healthy economy needs to be based on more than a race to the
bottom, and I believe that very strongly, and believe the Fed has
an important role in whether or not this is a race up or a race
down. A race down is a lose/lose for our country and for every
American, and we need to change that.
It must produce good-paying jobs. Our economy has to be dynamic as well to easily assimilate those who are forced from their
old jobs into new jobs. A healthy American economy must be more
than a service economy. We make things and grow things in this
country. We make things and grow things in my home State. We
do it very well. I do not believe we should concede in a global mar-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

13
ketplace that we no longer make things or grow things. Again, I
think we would lose our middle class.
A healthy economy must be rooted in reality as well. Global competition is here to stay, and we must wake up to the reality that
China, Japan, and others are competitors, and treat them like competitors. As the President begins his tour of Asia this week, I want
to reemphasize the need for this country, our country, to insist on
fair trade, a level playing field for our businesses and our workers.
Currency manipulation and counterfeiting are destroying jobs in
Michigan and in America. It can be fixed. We just simply need the
political will to make the changes to do it.
In 2003, Dr. Bernanke, you said the current account deficit cannot be sustained at its current level. I would agree, and I believe
we have the tools to change that. No matter what the inflation
numbers show, no matter what the job numbers show, the current
approach that we are taking to our economy is destroying our way
of life in Michigan, and I believe is an incredible threat to our
country.
As the current Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr.
Bernanke, you are the President’s point person on economics. It is
important for me to know and for the people of the State of Michigan to know that as the Federal Reserve Chair you will be your
own man, and capable of separating yourself from these policies.
They are not working. And I welcome you to come to Michigan, and
I can show you, sit you down with the faces of business people,
workers, and families that can show you that they are not working.
These are difficult times for average Americans. The position to
which you have been nominated impacts all of us in very real ways.
Your views on how we will maintain growth is of vital importance
to our future as a Nation. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. You always make it a priority to move nominations
promptly, and I particularly commend you for that policy today.
The position of Federal Reserve Chairman is one of the most important in the country and possibly the world, and I appreciate
that we are taking up that nomination today. I was pleased when
President Bush announced his intention to nominate Ben Bernanke
to Chair the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Dr. Bernanke is
widely respected, and will maintain continuity with the policies
and strategies that have allowed our country to prosper. The reaction of Wall Street and the investment world would also seem to
confirm the positive view of Dr. Bernanke’s nomination.
Dr. Bernanke brings a uniquely advantageous mix of both academic and practical experience. After spending 20 years at Princeton, including as Chairman of the Economic Department, Dr.
Bernanke is well-respected and frequently quoted in academic circles. He is considered one of the world’s leading experts on the subject of how central banks such as the Fed should set interest rates
and cause the money supply to expand or contract.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

14
Rather than limiting himself to purely academic knowledge and
research, Dr. Bernanke also has outstanding real world credentials
that have allowed him a fuller understanding of the job for which
he is nominated. His service as a Fed Governor can be viewed as
an apprenticeship for the chairmanship. Through his service as a
Governor he became aware of the challenges facing the Fed, as well
as the strategies that have made it successful in meeting past challenges. It will allow him to ease the transition between Chairmen.
Additionally, Dr. Bernanke has continued his public service as
Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, a position for which I was also pleased to support his confirmation. I am
encouraged that Dr. Bernanke has indicated the importance of
fighting inflation and of increasing transparency at the Fed. I was
particularly pleased in my discussions with him that he is going to
stress improved transparency.
I also appreciate that Dr. Bernanke has acknowledged that the
final determination on debts and deficits rightfully lies with the
President and Congress.
Dr. Bernanke, thank you for appearing here today before the
Banking Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to once again
discuss your views on a variety of matters. You have always made
yourself accessible to me personally, as well as to this Committee,
and I am pleased to support your nomination and hope that the
Committee will be able to vote promptly.
Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Dr. Bernanke, will you stand and raise your
right hand and be sworn?
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Mr. BERNANKE. I do.
Chairman SHELBY. Do you agree to appear and testify before any
duly-constituted committee of the Senate?
Mr. BERNANKE. I do.
Chairman SHELBY. Please sit. Your written testimony will be
made part of the record in its entirety. You can sum up what you
want to say here. Do you have anybody you want to introduce, any
family members or anything here this morning? You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF BEN S. BERNANKE
OF NEW JERSEY, NOMINEE, TO BE A MEMBER
AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Mr. BERNANKE. No, Chairman. I would like to briefly read testimony if I may?
Chairman SHELBY. Yes.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Chairman Shelby, Senator Sarbanes and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
and for the expeditious scheduling of this hearing. I would also like
to express my gratitude to President Bush for nominating me to be
a Member and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System. If I am confirmed, I will work to the utmost of my
abilities to fulfill the important responsibilities of this office.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

15
I recently testified before this Committee in my capacity as
Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Today,
however, I appear before this Committee in a different capacity, as
the President’s nominee to lead the Federal Reserve System. In
this prospective new role, I would bear the critical responsibility of
preserving the independent and nonpartisan status of the Federal
Reserve, a status that, in my view, is essential to that institution’s
ability to function effectively and achieve its mandated objectives.
I assure this Committee that, if I am confirmed, I will be strictly
independent of all political influences and will be guided solely by
the Federal Reserve’s mandate from Congress and by the public interest.
With respect to monetary policy, I will make continuity with the
policies and policy strategies of the Greenspan Fed a top priority.
Several aspects of the policy strategy that has evolved under Chairman Greenspan, and under Chairman Volcker before him, deserve
special note.
First, central bankers in the United States and around the world
have come to understand that ensuring long-run price stability is
essential for achieving maximum employment and overall economic
stability. In recent decades, the variability of output and employment has decreased markedly, and recessions have become less frequent and less severe. I believe that the Federal Reserve’s success
in reducing and stabilizing inflation and inflation expectations is a
major reason for this improved economic performance. If I am confirmed, I am confident that my colleagues on the Federal Open
Market Committee and I will maintain our focus on long-term price
stability as monetary policy’s greatest contribution to general economic prosperity and maximum employment.
Second, monetary policy at the Fed has been executed with both
careful judgment and flexibility. To cite one prominent example,
Chairman Greenspan’s risk-management policy approach attempts
to take into account the possible consequences of not only the most
likely forecast outcomes, but also of a range of lower probability
outcomes. Implementing this approach requires sophisticated judgments about possible risks to the economy, as well as the flexibility
to respond quickly to new information or unexpected developments.
Risk analysis of this type is a necessary component of successful
monetary policymaking. To be sure, the need for flexibility does not
imply that a good policy is undisciplined, as Chairman Greenspan
himself has emphasized. Monetary policy is most effective when it
is as coherent, consistent and predictable as possible, while at all
times leaving full scope for flexibility and the use of judgment as
conditions may require.
Finally, under Chairman Greenspan, monetary policy has become
increasingly transparent to the public and the financial markets, a
trend that I strongly support. A more transparent policy process increases democratic accountability, promotes constructive dialogue
between policymakers and informed outsiders, reduces uncertainty
in financial markets, and helps to anchor the public’s expectations
of long-run inflation, which, as I have argued already, promotes
economic growth and stability.
One possible step toward greater transparency would be for the
FOMC to state explicitly the numerical inflation rate or range of

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

16
inflation rates it considers to be consistent with the goal of longterm price stability, a practice currently employed by many of the
world’s central banks. I have supported this idea in my academic
writings and in speeches as a Board Member.
Providing quantitative guidance about the meaning of ‘‘long-term
price stability’’ could have several advantages, including further reducing public uncertainty about monetary policy and anchoring
long-term inflation expectations even more effectively.
I view the explicit statement of a long-run inflation objective as
fully consistent with the Federal Reserve’s current policy approach,
including its appropriate emphasis on the role of judgment and
flexibility in policymaking. Most important, this step would in no
way reduce the importance of maximum employment as a policy
goal. Indeed, a key justification for this action is its potential to
contribute to stronger and more stable employment growth by further stabilizing inflation and inflation expectations. In any case, I
assure this Committee that if I am confirmed, I will take no precipitate steps in the direction of quantifying the definition of longterm price stability. This matter requires further study at the Federal Reserve, as well as extensive discussion and consultation. I
would propose further action only if a consensus can be developed
that taking such a step would further enhance the ability of the
FOMC to satisfy its dual mandate of achieving both stable prices
and maximum sustainable employment.
My comments so far today have focused on monetary policy. Of
course, the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities extend well beyond
this area. Since its founding, the Federal Reserve has been given
substantial responsibility for protecting the stability of the Nation’s
financial system, which is a precondition for stability of the broader
economy. For example, the Fed works closely with other regulators
to ensure the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system,
and over the years it has played a constructive role in managing
and mitigating diverse types of financial crises. If I am confirmed,
I will work to enhance the stability of the financial system and to
ensure that the resources, procedures, and expertise are in place as
needed to respond to any threats to stability that may emerge.
The Federal Reserve, along with other regulators, is also engaged
in trying to ensure that consumers are treated fairly in their financial dealings: That their privacy is protected, that they receive
clear and understandable information about the terms of financial
agreements, and that they are not subject to discriminatory or abusive lending practices. The Fed also enhances consumer welfare
through programs to promote financial literacy and community economic development. These are important responsibilities, and if I
am confirmed, I will give them my close attention and support.
I have emphasized this morning the importance of intellectual
continuity in policymaking. A more fundamental source of continuity, however, is the superb staff and leadership of the Federal
Reserve System. If I am confirmed, I will have the privilege of
drawing on the great strengths of this institution to ensure a continuity of the policy process that transcends any single person. I
very much look forward to this opportunity.
Let me conclude by offering special thanks to Chairman Greenspan for his collegiality and support when I served on the Board

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

17
of Governors and for his exemplary leadership of the Federal Reserve System. One may aspire to succeed Chairman Greenspan,
but it will not be possible to replace him.
Thank you. I would be happy to take your questions.
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Dr. Bernanke. It is well known
that you have been a proponent of inflation targeting, which is
pleasing to this Senator. Have your views on inflation targeting,
Dr. Bernanke, as an academic, been tempered by your more recent
experience as a policymaker, both at the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve and in your present job as the top economic adviser to the President of the United States?
Mr. BERNANKE. Chairman Shelby, my views on inflation targeting now are that it represents continuity with the existing approach of the Federal Reserve System, which focuses on maintaining medium- and long-term inflation stability as the primary contribution that the Fed can make to maintaining stability of the
general economy. We see, for example, in the last 20 years, that
the economy has become more stable, that employment growth and
output growth have been stronger and more stable, that recessions
have been less frequent. I attribute that to the maintenance of stable inflation and inflation expectations.
So, in that respect, the inflation targeting ideas that I had espoused simply are an attempt to perhaps codify or strengthen this
important commitment of this Federal Reserve to maintaining low
inflation.
I also think of this as a continuation of the Fed’s recent progress
toward greater transparency in policymaking. Over the past 10
years, the Fed has become increasingly more open about its processes, about its decisionmaking, and I believe this is just a single
step and indeed just an incremental step that would add to that
transparency.
But, in particular, I would like to emphasize to those who may
be concerned that, in no way, do I intend to make any significant
change in the overall approach to monetary policy that has been
developed under Chairman Greenspan.
Chairman SHELBY. Dr. Bernanke, do you believe an inflation targeting regime is consistent with the Federal Reserve’s other goals,
that is, of long-term sustainable growth and full employment, or
full as we can get?
Mr. BERNANKE. Chairman Shelby, I subscribe entirely and
wholeheartedly to the dual mandate. I believe the Federal Reserve
has an important responsibility to maintain strong and sustained
employment growth. I believe, though, that the best way that the
Fed can do that, or one of the best ways, is to maintain, in the
medium- and long-term, low and stable inflation and inflation expectations. To the extent that the inflation targeting approach,
which may not be a good name for the process, but to the extent
that naming a long-term inflation objective can help to stabilize
those expectations, keep inflation under control, I think it actually
significantly advances our ability to meet the dual mandate and to
increase employment growth.
Chairman SHELBY. Is it your view that price stability is very important to all Americans?
Mr. BERNANKE. I certainly agree with that, Chairman.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

18
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you. When your nomination was announced by President Bush, you indicated, ‘‘My first priority will
be to maintain continuity with the policies and policy strategies established during the Greenspan years.’’ But when you are confirmed, as I predict you will be soon as Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, it will be the Bernanke-led Federal Reserve. Could you
elaborate on your statement for the Committee here today? Specifically, can you discuss your views on the importance of price stability that I just referenced, and do you view the pursuit of inflation targeting regime, which we have been talking about, as being
consistent with the policy strategies of the Greenspan era?
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes, Chairman. In my statement, I emphasized
three elements of the Greenspan strategy. They are, first of all,
maintaining low and stable inflation in the medium-term; second,
using flexibility and judgment in making monetary policy—I do not
subscribe to any rigid or mechanical rule in policymaking—and the
third, using transparency to inform the public and the markets
about policy and its intentions. In all these respects, I intend to be
continuous with Chairman Greenspan. I expect also, though not to
be static and to evolve over time. In the case of Chairman Greenspan, transparency changed over time, evolving into a greater degree of transparency. I expect going forward, to look for other opportunities to increase the transparency of the Federal Reserve.
Naming the long-term inflation objective, which I again emphasize
would be done only if there is a broad consensus that it is appropriate, would be one potential step for increasing that transparency.
So good monetary policymaking evolves over time, as we learned
from the experience of other countries and from our own experience. I intend to be flexible and to learn from experience, but I believe the right starting point is where we currently are, that Chairman Greenspan has demonstrated in his policymaking.
Chairman SHELBY. Dr. Bernanke, you have spoken before of
transparency at the Fed and so forth. Do you believe that there
would be a point at which transparency would be or could be counterproductive to effective implementation of monetary policy?
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes, Chairman Shelby, I do. Transparency has
an important role in helping the public understand policy intentions and policy goals. However, transparency should not be allowed to interfere with the decisionmaking process itself. To the
extent that, for example, some have suggested that the FOMC
meetings be televised.
Chairman SHELBY. FOMC, tell the public what that is. We know.
Mr. BERNANKE. I do not think that, for example——
Chairman SHELBY. Open Market Committee?
Mr. BERNANKE. I am sorry. The FOMC, the Federal Open Market Committee, that is the decisionmaking body that determines
monetary policy. One extreme form of transparency would be simply to televise the meeting at which the discussion takes place. My
concern about that suggestion is that it would inhibit discussion,
that it would affect the decision process, that it would create volatility in financial markets. I believe that is an example of a transparency which might be a step too far in terms of affecting the decision process itself.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

19
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes.
Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me continue on the inflation targeting issue since it has been
put into play here right at the outset.
In 2000, you and several colleagues wrote an opinion piece in The
Wall Street Journal entitled ‘‘What Happens When Greenspan is
Gone?’’ You were certainly looking ahead, I must say.
[Laughter.]
In that article you stated, ‘‘We think the best bet lies in a framework known as inflation targeting, which has been employed with
great success in recent years by most of the world’s biggest economies, except for Japan.’’ The European Central Bank uses inflation
targeting, and they set the target at 2 percent. But most observers
see their experience has been one of slower economic growth and
higher unemployment, and usually, actually, although not always,
higher inflation.
What we have achieved in the United States without an inflation
target—and I just want to show three charts in that regard. One
is GDP growth in the United States versus Europe. Our GDP
growth as a general proposition has done better. The next inflation,
United States versus Europe. And except for this period here—and
we are on the way back down—we have done a better job. And
then the final chart is the unemployment rate, United States
versus Europe. There, as we see, the United States has consistently
had a substantially lower unemployment rate than the Europeans
have.
So on unemployment rate, inflation, and GDP growth, we are
doing better than the leading practitioner I would guess of inflation
targeting.
David Wyss, Standard and Poor’s Chief Economist, summarized
the lesson of these charts this way: The experience of the European
Central Bank does not give people a lot of confidence about inflation targeting. That was in a BNA report just a few weeks ago.
If inflation targeting works so poorly in Europe compared to our
performance, why should we go down that path here?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, just as a preliminary remark, it is certainly the case the U.S. economy has outperformed the industrial
economies of Europe in the last decade or so, and I would ascribe
that primarily to a set of structural differences: The flexibility of
our labor markets, for example, compared to European labor markets, regulatory tax policies, and other policies. So, I do not ascribe
the very real differences that you point to as being primarily related to monetary policy.
Having said that, I think it is important to note that the European Central Bank itself does not describe its own policy as inflation targeting, and its policies are very distinct from the ones I
would advocate in one very important sense, that the mandate of
the European Central Bank is for price stability and price stability
only, with other considerations to be taken account of only insofar
as price stability is met.
Senator SARBANES. And what do you think of that?
Mr. BERNANKE. I disagree with it entirely.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

20
Senator SARBANES. All right. Now, let me ask you the next follow-on—and I am hurrying along because we get limited in the
time we have to ask questions.
Of course, Chairman Greenspan publicly opposed inflation targeting. In the book on inflation targeting that you edited several
years ago, some academics recommended that the Federal Open
Market Committee unilaterally establish inflation targets. Former
Fed Governor Ned Gramlich has argued that any move toward inflation targeting would require the approval of the Congress, and
he made this statement: ‘‘The question of whether the United
States does or does not adopt a formal inflation-targeting regime
is not up to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Act now requires the Fed to strive for maximum employment and balanced
growth, along with price stability and moderate long-term interest
rates. Until the Congress changes these guidelines, the Fed will
continue to pursue these goals.’’
Do you agree with Governor Gramlich?
Mr. BERNANKE. I disagree somewhat with his premise, Senator.
Inflation targeting comes in many flavors. Some countries have
taken a more hawkish stance in terms of putting inflation first
among equals or even first among the objectives of policy. As I said,
I subscribe entirely to the Humphrey-Hawkins mandate, which
puts employment growth and output growth on a fully equal footing with inflation in terms of the Federal Reserve’s objectives.
I believe in the types of changes that I am proposing—which are
not major changes—in the way policy is conducted or any change
in objectives; are modest bit of additional transparency, which I believe would help the Federal Reserve achieve the stated, mandated
objectives the Federal Reserve Act.
Since this is not a change in objectives or a change in fundamental operating procedure, in my view the kinds of suggestions I
am making would not require a change in the law. If I thought
they did, I would not follow them through because I am not interested in changing the mandate of the Federal Reserve.
Senator SARBANES. Well, you certainly could not do it unilaterally. You would have to come to the Congress in order to do that,
would you not?
Mr. BERNANKE. To change the law, certainly.
Senator SARBANES. Yes.
Mr. BERNANKE. Of course. So, I would not be interested in pursuing that matter with Congress if I thought that it involved
changing the mandate of the Federal Reserve.
Senator SARBANES. E.J. Dionne wrote just a few weeks ago, ‘‘A
Fed Chairman who beats inflation at the cost of middle-income living standards will not be regarded as a success.’’
What do you think about that observation?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I think it is a false dichotomy. Middleincome living standards, and poverty, for that matter, are best addressed through strong, stable employment growth. It is low-income people who suffer most from recessions. It is low-income people who suffer most from high levels of inflation. The understanding that central banks currently have is that by maintaining
inflation at a low and stable level, avoiding a situation where inflation gets out of control—as it did, for example, in the 1970’s—you

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

21
can create more stable, more solid, and more substantial growth in
employment.
I am entirely in favor of maximum employment. I believe this is
a method to achieve it. If I did not think it was, I would not pursue
it.
Senator SARBANES. My time has expired. I just want to leave you
with the impression of these two charts again.
This is the unemployment rate in the United States versus Europe, and, of course, the Europeans Central Bank is the one that
is cited for using inflation targeting. They set a 2-percent figure.
This is the unemployment rate. This is 4 percent here. This is 6
percent there.
In the United States, substantially and consistently below the
unemployment rate in Europe.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, it was below that rate 20 years ago before ECB was even created. I believe there are other factors that
contribute to that difference.
Senator SARBANES. We will have to separate them out, but a
number of people think that the European Central Bank focus on
inflation targeting as its only objective, which is what it has been
given, has led to a loss of economic growth, GDP growth, and the
unemployment situation, without getting a particularly better performance on the inflation front compared to the United States.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I disagree with that objective. I think
the dual objective is the correct one.
Senator SARBANES. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sununu.
Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin with an observation about your concern with regard
to having cameras in Open Market Committee proceedings. We
have had televised Senate debate for some time now, and I think
you will find political posturing for the benefit of the cameras is
practically unheard of.
[Laughter.]
Let me engage you in a modest hypothetical. It is the end of December 2007, and we are into the second year of the Bernanke Fed.
The charm offensive has continued. The titans on Wall Street are
wearing tan socks in deference to the intelligent but very plain-spoken Chairman of the Fed.
For the past 6 months, the announced target rate has been 1.5to 2.5-percent inflation as a target for the Fed, but for the final
quarter of 2007, inflation has been running at an average of 4.2
percent.
What do you say? What do you do? And how do the markets respond?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, a little bit depends on the circumstances
and where the inflation came from and the like. The inflation objective is explicitly a long-term or medium-term objective. It focuses,
for example, on core inflation to avoid getting involved in shortterm fluctuations in energy prices and the like.
My principal concern at that point would not be that inflation
had temporarily risen above its normal range. For example, currently inflation is above the range that in the long-run would be

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

22
desirable. But the concern would be that expectations about inflation going a year or two in the future had become unhinged or
unanchored so that the public was losing its confidence in the Federal Reserve to maintain low and stable inflation.
I believe that maintaining that confidence is extremely important. It is important whether you have an explicit target or whether you do not have an explicit target. Under Chairman Greenspan,
talk and action were combined to assure the markets that over a
period of time—not necessarily within a quarter or two quarters,
but over a period of time, perhaps lasting several years—the Fed
would stabilize inflation in a region consistent with the objective of
price stability.
So that is the approach I would take. I would certainly not try
to return inflation to a target within a short period of time. I would
simply try to assure the markets that over a long period of time
the Federal Reserve was committed to price stability as a central
part of its monetary strategy.
Senator SUNUNU. What can you do to provide that long-run,
longer-term assurance? And do you think that markets are sophisticated enough, rational enough, intelligent enough to recognize
this difference between the longer-term objective with regard to
core inflation and what you might perceive in your capacity as Fed
Chairman as being a shorter-term anomaly?
Mr. BERNANKE. I think the markets are quite able to distinguish.
They pay a lot of attention now to core measures because they understand that the Fed is interested not in short-term inflation fluctuations but, rather, in the long-term trend of inflation and making
sure that it stays under good control.
Again, I think the primary means of winning inflation credibility
is by demonstrating, over a long period of time, that the Fed is
committed to maintaining price stability by doing that. By naming
a potential range, which I emphasize is no fait accompli, is something that is going to be discussed and will be consulted with Members of Congress, but naming such a range does not change the
underlying dynamic. It is only an attempt to provide a bit of additional confidence, a bit of additional assurance, or a bit of additional certainty to the markets about the Federal Reserve’s longterm objective.
Senator SUNUNU. Has there been any attempt or any success at
measuring improvements or the beneficial impact on stability or
volatility in those central banks that have used targeting?
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes, Senator, there is an extensive literature. I
could talk about it for quite a while.
Senator SUNUNU. You have 22 seconds.
Mr. BERNANKE. It is not quite definitive because, of course, every
country is different. But there is recent evidence by Board research, for example, from the United Kingdom and Sweden, which
shows greater stability in their long-term interest rates after they
became inflation targeters because the market has more confidence
that inflation and long-term interest rates will remain stable and
less concern about short-term fluctuations.
Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

23
Senator Dodd.
Senator DODD. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, very much, and let me
thank our witness again for his presence here this morning.
Let me not go quite as far in advance as my colleague from New
Hampshire has, going a couple of years, but let me talk about
something that is looming, I think maybe in the next few weeks or
months, and that is an energy shock which we may witness here.
I do not know whether you would agree or not, but I suspect you
might agree that handling an energy shock is one of the most difficult problems that the Federal Reserve has to respond to.
Last year, as a Member of the Board, you gave a speech in which
you said, ‘‘Monetary policy cannot offset the recessionary and inflationary effects of increased oil prices at the same time. If the central bank lowers interest rates in an effort to stimulate growth, it
risks adding to inflationary pressure. But if it raises rates enough
to choke off the inflationary effect of the increase in oil prices, it
may exacerbate the slowdown in economic growth. Whether monetary policy eases or tightens following an increase in energy prices
ultimately depends on how policymakers balance the risks they
perceive to their employment and price stability objectives.’’
I bring up this dilemma because a piece this morning, The New
York Times ran an article about the potential threat of an energy
price shock to our Nation’s economy, and the article reads, ‘‘Unexpectedly warm weather has bathed much of the United States in
recent weeks, but fears persist that a classic energy shock may be
unfolding as the Nation heads into winter.’’
The article goes on to quote the owner of a business whose
monthly natural gas price—and it is in the natural gas price here
I think we are looking at the major problem here. But they cite a
business that doubled its natural gas bill from $700,000 to $1.4
million as an example of the threat posed by high energy prices to
our larger economy. I might point in my State, 51 percent of my
consumers use natural gas, and they are looking at about a $276
increase, or a 27-percent increase this winter.
After the last major price shock hit our Nation’s economy in the
1970’s, it took a painful recession that had deep and lasting consequences for many people to bring inflation back under control.
Given the soaring prices of oil and gas over the past few months
and the possibility of further supply disruptions, what type of monetary policy prescription would you apply? I mean, I appreciate
your article in which you cite the balancing things here, but then
you were writing an article. Now you are going to become the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve. You do not have the luxury of
telling us on the one hand and on the other. We want Harry Truman’s economist here, and that is, a one-armed economist here.
What is the answer of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve if we
face this type of a shock?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, as I also discussed in that particular
speech, the oil price impacts on the economy and the monetary policy response is an excellent illustration of the importance of having
low, stable, and well-anchored inflation expectations. The contrast
between the 1970’s and now, with an energy price shock of a similar magnitude, is very instructive. During the 1970’s, inflation expectations were very poorly anchored. There was very little con-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

24
fidence that the Fed would keep inflation low and stable. When oil
prices rose, those price increases fed through quickly into other
prices and began to raise the general rate of inflation quite quickly.
The Fed responded in a panicked way, by raising interest rates
enormously, which then contributed to the deep recessions of 1975
and 1981–1982.
In a more recent episode, we have had extensive increases in energy prices, but outside of the energy sector, if we look at core inflation, core inflation remains very well-controlled, and as a result,
the Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates from its
low accommodative level, but to only 4 percent at this point, and
the economy is growing strongly.
So, I think this is an enormously good illustration of why keeping
inflation low, stable, and keeping expectations well-anchored is of
tremendous benefit, not just on the inflation side but also on the
employment and growth side.
Senator DODD. So you would not anticipate taking any precipitous action here in light of these price increases?
Mr. BERNANKE. I believe that inflation expectations remain wellanchored. It is important to ensure they remain well-anchored. But
as long as they remain well tied down and low and stable, I imagine that the economy will be much better able to absorb any further increases in energy prices than they were 30 years ago.
Senator DODD. Any indications you have as a result of your
present employment that the anecdote cited here in The New York
Times article about the business that virtually is doubling its energy costs as a result of price increases is more than just anecdotal?
Mr. BERNANKE. There are real problems in the energy sector; in
natural gas, in particular, there have been substantial increases in
prices, largely because the United States is somewhat isolated in
terms of natural gas. We do not have the capacity to import large
amounts, and, therefore, when we lose domestic production, as we
did following Katrina, the shortage of supply drives up prices.
Natural gas prices have been rising for some time, and this has
proved a very heavy burden to chemical manufacturers, Alumina,
other manufacturers in the United States. That is a real problem.
I do not want to understate that problem at all. But, obviously,
monetary policy per se can only try to avoid having those price increases spread into general inflation. Monetary policy cannot create
more energy. It cannot really solve the energy problem.
Senator DODD. Let me jump quickly, because time is short here,
to another area of questioning, if I can, although that is obviously
a looming problem here. And if you are confirmed, we are going to
want to talk with you about this potential energy shock.
Let me address the issue of fiscal responsibility and deficit-financed tax cuts. You wrote in your macroeconomic textbook that
you co-authored with Andrew Abel, you discussed the negative effect of budget deficits, and I thought a rather good paragraph here,
you said, ‘‘The tendency of government budget deficits to reduce investment spending is called crowding out.’’ You have used that line
many times in your book. ‘‘Reduced investment spending implies
lower capital formation and, thus, lower economic growth. The adverse effect of budget deficits on economic growth is probably the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

25
most important cost of deficits and a major reason why economists
advise governments to minimize their deficits.’’
Because of the negative effect of budget deficits, which you so
eloquently describe, is it not possible that the cost of running a
budget deficit could outweigh any benefit to be gained by a tax cut?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I agree that budget deficits are a problem. I think it is important to continue to reduce budget deficits.
I am going to begin now, I think, a practice of not making recommendations on specific tax or spending proposals——
Senator DODD. I did not ask for that here. I am just asking
whether or not the negative implications of a budget deficit could
outweigh any benefits—without getting very specific. We won’t talk
about any specific tax cut, just as a general proposition.
Mr. BERNANKE. As a general proposition, it is possible. It depends on the scale of spending, the size of the deficit, and whether
or not the debt-to-GDP ratio is thought to be stable or not.
Senator DODD. So it could be more damaging to our——
Mr. BERNANKE. It is possible.
Senator DODD. Let me ask you quickly as well, are you concerned
at all about the record levels of debt being held by foreign creditors? We are now talking numbers that are getting close to $1 trillion, I think it is. Does that worry you at all as the potential Chairman of the Federal Reserve?
Mr. BERNANKE. Well, Senator, given that we have a large current
account deficit—a complex issue which I am sure I will be asked
to address and will be glad to address and given that that deficit
needs to be financed, we are fortunate that foreigners, including
foreign central banks, seem quite willing to hold U.S. Treasury
debt and other financial instruments. So it is like asking how it
feels to be very old. You consider the alternative. It is better to
have willingness to hold our financial assets than not, given that
we have a large current account deficit.
Senator DODD. But certainly better off if we did not have to have
them hold it at all. Better to be young.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BERNANKE. The issue is what to do about the current account deficit, and I would argue that we need over a period of time,
to reduce the current account deficit. I believe that is possible to
do. Once the current account deficit comes down, then the need to
have foreign financing will, therefore, be reduced.
Senator DODD. So you are not alarmed about this at all.
Mr. BERNANKE. I believe that the current account deficit needs
to come down over a period of time.
Senator DODD. But you are not alarmed about foreign creditors
holding this debt?
Mr. BERNANKE. I think that it is an essential implication of the
fact that we have a current account deficit, that it needs to be financed, that we are better off with willing lenders than we are
with unwilling lenders. If they were not willing to hold our obligations, interest rates would be higher the economy would not be as
strong.
Senator DODD. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bennett.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

26
Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to your comments to Senator Sununu, Dr. Bernanke, both
of you talk about inflation here or inflation there and you use numbers. That assumes that we know what inflation is. That assumes
that our measuring device is accurate. And I am not sure that is
true. Do we use CPI? Do we used chained CPI? Do we use the PCE
price index, the CPI–U? Various measures of inflation.
Then the Tax Code has provisions that are indexed to CPI–U,
and let me ask you, do you believe that CPI–U is the appropriate
measure or would you rather move to something like the chained
CPI or the PCE price index? Your predecessor always insisted that
the CPI was overstated, and I would like your reaction to that, because we are talking about pegging to a number or trying to find
a number or trying to hit a goal. But if the goal is measured improperly, we need X number of touchdowns, and the touchdown are
only worth 4 points, and we are counting them at 6, why, we end
up with the wrong kind of strategy.
A very bad analogy. I apologize for it.
Mr. BERNANKE. That is a very good question, Senator.
As you know, Senator, there was a commission some years ago
headed by Michael Boskin with a number of other distinguished
academics that reviewed the Consumer Price Index as a measurement of inflation, and it found for a number of reasons that it overstated inflation. Quality adjustment bias, substitution bias, and
other technical matters were involved.
For that reason, for purposes of thinking about inflation and for
purposes possibly even of indexing in the Government, I think consideration should be given to measures of inflation which adjust for
some of these concerns. For example, chain-weighted measures of
inflation tend to reduce the substitution bias that the Boskin Commission pointed to.
With respect to choosing an inflation objective in the mediumterm, there are many considerations one would want to take into
account—familiarity by the public, for example. I think that would
need to be discussed by the Federal Open Market Committee and
in our general consultations. To the extent that, say, the CPI overstates inflation by an approximately known amount, one could simply adjust the range of inflation rates that define price stability to
allow for that bias.
So there are many considerations to be taken into account there,
and I do not want to prejudge that issue.
Senator BENNETT. Okay. As I said, the Tax Code has provisions
that are tied to CPI. Would you recommend that we change the
Tax Code if we come to the conclusion that it is overstated—which
Chairman Greenspan believes—and, thus, affect bracket creep and
all of the other things that occur there?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, of course, this is ultimately Congress’
decision, but from a purely technical perspective, I believe there
are better measures of inflation than the CPI–U, and in that respect, one might want to consider alternatives.
Senator BENNETT. That was at the heart of my proposal with respect to Social Security, looking at the way the inflation is measured.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

27
Let us go to tax reform. Two versions of tax reform were forwarded by the President’s tax reform commission to the Department of the Treasury for review. Frankly, I was a little disappointed. I was hoping for a clean sheet of paper approach, and
I feel that they were nibbling around the edges. I think the current
Tax Code, which has its philosophical basis in the 1930’s, is no
longer applicable to the 21st century. I have a novel and radical
idea that the purpose of taxes should be to raise money to run the
Government and not to direct economic activity toward or against
any particular bias.
We then run into the question of how much money does the Government need, and, historically, I have felt comfortable with 20
percent of GDP as the absolute top ceiling, and we have gotten by,
regardless of where the Tax Code is. A combination of payroll taxes
and income taxes have produced revenues somewhere in a band of
18.5 to 19.5 percent of GDP, with the river of revenue that came
in when we changed the capital gains tax rate as part of the agreement made between Congress and President Clinton following the
1996 election, where the capital gains realizations were 5 times as
much as CBO had projected that they would be. The Federal revenue went up to 22, 22.5 percent of GDP, and that was one of the
figures that caused some of us to feel we could support a reduction
in tax burden to come down to the 20 percent—below 20-percent
ceiling.
Then we had September 11, we had the recession, we had the
war, and the economy went into the tank, so that we fell down to
about 16.5 percent of GDP. We are now rising comfortably back toward the 18.5 to 19.5 percent band where last year tax revenues
were up 14 percent over the previous year, showing that these policies were working.
Where would you put the ceiling, regardless of what the tax
structure is? Are you comfortable with saying 20 percent of GDP
is all the Federal Government should be taking out of the economy?
Or would you go with some of our friends who say no, it should be
as high as 25 or 28, 29 percent of GDP and then we can pay for
all of the wonderful things Congress wants to enact? Do you have
an opinion as to where that number should be?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I just note that as an empirical fact,
over the last 40 years, the share of GDP collected as Federal taxes
has been pretty stable at about 18.2 percent, something in that
range. And you are right, we are not much below that at this point.
No, I would not be inclined to pick a specific number other than
to observe that historically we have been stable around this 18-percent rate. The choices that Congress will face are really cost-benefit
choices. Looking at individual programs, do they meet the cost-benefit test when you include in the cost the fact that the higher the
share of GDP that you collect in taxes, the greater are the so-called
deadweight losses or excess burdens associated with the inefficiencies of high taxes? I do not think that one can necessarily point to
a single number, but I do believe that a rigid, rigorous cost-benefit
analysis should be applied to different programs.
I would point out a concern, which may be what you are alluding
to, that on current plans the three major entitlement programs—
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—are slated to take up

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

28
about 16 percent of the GDP as of 2045. Together with the interest
on the national debt, that would be pretty much the entire share
of GDP that we are currently spending on the Government.
Senator BENNETT. It would be higher than that, according to the
projections I have seen.
Mr. BERNANKE. So, in any case, it would involve either radical
increases in taxes, radical cuts in other spending programs, or
some combination. So, I do believe, if that is what you are alluding
to, that certainly is a looming issue that needs to be addressed
sooner rather than later.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bennett, thank you.
We have about 3 minutes left on this series of votes. Dr.
Bernanke, we will recess until 3 o’clock.
The hearing is in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman SHELBY. The hearing will come back to order.
The Chair recognizes Senator Carper.
Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a memory
like an elephant, so thanks for letting me lead off here.
Chairman SHELBY. It is your time.
Senator CARPER. Yes, it is.
Dr. Bernanke, thank you for coming back and for accommodating
our schedule. We apologize for all those votes and that you had to
truncate your day.
Just a couple of press interviews right around our lunch hour,
and people were asking me, like some TV people and radio people
wanted to know how things were going so far, and I described the
hearings; I described a day-night double header in baseball: We did
the day part of the game, and now, we are about to move into the
twilight portion of the game.
I would like to just start by again thanking you for being here,
for your willingness to serve our country. And I am just going to
ask you to take a couple of minutes, if you will, and just describe
what you see when you look at our economy: How we are doing,
where we are strong, where we are not so strong and any thoughts
you might have toward what we can do better. I would like to say
that everything we do, we can do better, and how do you assess the
situation, and how might we do better?
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you, Senator.
That is a large question. I think in the near-term, the economy
is in a strong recovery. The economy has been growing quickly for
the last couple of years. Employment has been improving. The
labor market is improving, and I am looking forward to that
growth continuing next year despite the obviously serious impacts
of the hurricanes.
One good feature of this growth has been the increase in productivity, which we saw again in the third quarter. The ability of this
economy to continue to improve output per hour is remarkable and
speaks very well for the innovativeness and the industry of the
American people and speaks well for the future of the economy.
With respect to inflation, I think the main issue has to do with
energy prices. The economy has withstood 3 years of increasing energy prices. So far, both growth and inflation have not been very

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

29
badly affected; in particular, core inflation remains low, and I think
an important consideration for the Federal Reserve going forward
is that should energy price increases continue, they not feed into
second round effects; they not become part of the baseline inflation
rate.
So, I think the near-term situation is strong. There are certainly
risks. We can get into many of them. Housing prices will probably
stabilize. Energy prices are an issue. So there are some risks in the
near-term, but I think the baseline looks reasonably strong.
As some of our earlier conversations alluded to, I think the
United States economy faces some very serious long-term issues,
and just to tick them off for future discussion: First, fiscal, particularly over the next few decades, we have increasing obligations
with respect to entitlements. We will need to find ways to restructure those entitlement programs or else pay for them. They represent a very serious challenge to our economy.
Second, education will come up in many of our discussions here,
because in our world today—with enormous amounts of dynamism,
openness, international trade, change—people need to be able to
have lifetime learning to change, to be able to respond to new conditions. Education and training are going to be a crucial part of
that.
Third, I would mention technological leadership. We need to
maintain that leadership here in the United States. There have
been a number of reports here addressing that subject.
And finally, just this laundry list; perhaps more than you asked
for.
Senator CARPER. No, it is a good list.
Mr. BERNANKE. We need to address the health care sector. There
are many pockets of excellence, of course, in our health care system, but the costs are high, and they are rising. They have fiscal
implications—for wages, for competitiveness—and I would put that
along with these other long-term issues at the very top of the
things we need to address.
Senator CARPER. Thanks. On the last point you mentioned with
respect to health care, I mentioned to the people back in Delaware
on Veterans Day, we had a number of assemblies around the State
of veterans, and I mentioned that an unlikely model for us to consider emulating, at least with respect to harnessing information
technology in the provision of health care actually comes out of the
VA, a place which was a backwater just years ago but today is really setting the model.
You did not mention savings. We are lousy savers, as you know.
In fact, the last couple of months, I think we have actually seen
negative net savings. And I would just ask, is that a source of concern to you? Should it be for us? What should we do?
Mr. BERNANKE. I think it is an issue, Senator. I think part of the
reason for the low savings rate in the last few years is that our
wealth has risen for a variety of reasons. Our housing wealth has
increased. The stock market has recovered somewhat. So, with
their homes doing their savings for them, for example, people are
less inclined to put aside something from their paycheck.
That has implications for our current account, for other issues.
I suspect as we go forward that the savings rate will, of its own

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

30
accord, begin to rebound somewhat, but it is an important issue.
The fiscal situation contributes to the saving issue, so I agree that
is something we need to look to over the long period.
Senator CARPER. Good. My time has expired. I would just say to
my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and to others, if you look at homeownership in this country, it is now up close to 70 percent. It is
about 75 percent in my State. But there are some people, low- or
middle-income people, who should be homeowners, would like to be
homeowners. They have the ability to make a mortgage payment,
but they just are not able to get there. They do not think they can
get there.
And for a lot of those people, the ability to accumulate savings
has passed them by. And one of the things I hope we can do is figure out better to help them. Thank you.
Thanks, Dr. Bernanke, and good luck. I look forward to working
with you.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Reed.
Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and once
again, welcome, Dr. Bernanke.
One of the ways we were able to instill fiscal discipline during
the 1990’s was adherence to PAYGO rules. And I just wondered,
do you agree that PAYGO rules should apply to taxes as well as
to expenditures?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I think it is important for Congress to
have well-developed structures, practices, and procedures for managing its budget, but I am not going to make a recommendation on
that. I think that is outside of my realm of authority, and I think
I would leave that to the Senate, and to Congress, to make up their
own minds.
Senator REED. Well, your predecessor was not equally inhibited.
He seemed to suggest that PAYGO was an appropriate mechanism
to deal with fiscal discipline, and frankly, sometimes, we need a little help on these issues, Dr. Bernanke. So, I appreciate your ceding
us the ground, but this is a very serious issue, and it seems to me
that we will not be able to restore the discipline here in terms of
an orderly budget process unless we do something like that.
Let me ask the question again. You are an economist; I am a
lawyer, so I keep asking questions. If we do not subject tax cuts
to PAYGO, then, essentially, in this economy, we are borrowing the
money for these tax cuts. Is that accurate?
Mr. BERNANKE. It depends on both the spending side and the tax
side. To respond to your question in just a general economic way,
I think there are several things to look at when you are examining
a fiscal policy. One of them is deficits. Deficits are important, because they represent debt which is being accumulated and being
passed on to future generations. But the share of the economy
being devoted to Government spending is another important criterion. In particular, a balanced budget with Government spending
at 25 percent of GDP is a very different proposition than a balanced budget with Government spending at 15 percent of GDP.
So, I am a little bit reluctant—both for the reasons I mentioned
in terms of my prerogatives but also in terms of the economics—
to put specific rules like that. I think that the Congress has to

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

31
make judgments about the overall arc of the budget and make
tradeoffs.
Senator REED. Well, then, let me ask this a final way. Assuming
you are consistent in your viewpoint, you would not render an opinion if we increased expenditures without offsetting it.
Mr. BERNANKE. I believe that it is within my purview to discuss
broad issues of the share of Government spending and GDP, the
share of taxes and GDP, deficits, fiscal stability, those issues. What
I would like to do is refrain from making recommendations on specific matters of taxes and spending or specific approaches to paygo and the similar methods.
Senator REED. And we can assume that is going to be a policy
after you are confirmed as Chairman?
Mr. BERNANKE. That is my intention.
Senator REED. Thank you, Doctor.
Let me ask another question: Chairman Greenspan has explained as recently as last fall that it is, in his words, ‘‘Very rare
and very few economists believe that you can cut taxes, and you
will get the same amount of revenues. When you cut taxes, you
gain some revenue back. We do not know exactly this is, but it is
not small. But it is also not 70 percent or anything like that.’’ You
do not subscribe to the view that tax cuts pay for themselves, do
you?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, the revenue cost of a tax cut depends
on the structure of the tax cut, whether it is one that improves economic growth or not, and so on. I think that generally, tax cuts,
if they are well-designed, do increase growth and therefore do partially offset the revenue loss. But I think it is unusual for a tax
cut to completely offset the revenue loss.
Senator REED. Thank you, Dr. Bernanke.
One other area of concern, and that is although interest rates
have not gone—excuse me, we have had, over the last several quarters, increases by the Federal Reserve with respect to interest
rates, but the long-term interest rates have hardly moved at all,
and that is, I think, an issue that is beginning to draw a lot of professional attention as to why that might be.
Although these long-term interest rates have not gone up, the
large Federal budget deficits we have seen recently have substantially reduced our national savings. I think that is correct, also,
and the increase in national savings, I would assume, and I hope
you do also, does harm our future prosperity and economy; is that
accurate?
Mr. BERNANKE. It does increase the debt that we pass on to our
children; that is correct.
Senator REED. Now, just recently, I think Chairman Greenspan
has talked about the potential for foreign lenders to become disenchanted. Will interest rates not have to rise substantially in our
current posture if foreign lenders are not forthcoming? Is that almost axiomatic?
Mr. BERNANKE. I do not expect to see foreign lenders change
their holdings very significantly. The foreign holders are not doing
us a favor. What they are doing is choosing a set of assets which
they consider to be highly liquid, highly safe, from a country with

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

32
a safe, strong legal system. So it is for that reason that American
assets make up the bulk of international reserves.
I do not expect to see major changes in that. Moreover, there is
broad interest in holding U.S. assets both by Americans, of course,
but also by foreign, nonofficial sources as well, so I do not expect
to see any such shift in demand for U.S. assets.
Senator REED. Thank you, Dr. Bernanke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Stabenow.
Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome.
Welcome back.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Senator STABENOW. Dr. Bernanke, I wanted to talk a little bit
more about this whole question of our U.S. assets, financial assets
and other assets being held by foreign investors. We are told that
about $9 trillion in all, if you look at financial assets, large portions
of which are easily sold and highly susceptible to shifts in the market sentiment, to interest rates, to other variables, even a modest
slowdown in the net new inflows from private and official foreign
sources could have a negative impact on an economy where foreign
investment is about 25 percent of our gross national product, very
alarming. And I would argue that since a large part of that is
China and Japan, that it unduly impacts our ability to enforce
trade laws and to address other issues with them, whether we
want to acknowledge that or not. I have a hard time believing it
does not have some impact there.
But it would appear to many of us that our trade deficits are
leading us down an incredibly alarming path as well as our budget
deficits. When you are looking back, do you see any instances
where alternative monetary policy choices by the Fed could have
moderated the buildup of these imbalances or had an impact on
what is happening in terms of deficits?
Mr. BERNANKE. No, I do not think that the Federal Reserve,
whose mandate, after all, is domestic price stability and employment, has much role in terms of the current account deficit. The
current account deficit is a very complex phenomenon. I believe it
arises from essentially a global imbalance of saving and investment. Countries outside the United States have a lot of savings
that they want to put into international capital markets and insufficient investment to make use of those savings.
The United States has been the recipient of those savings, and
that is, in some sense, a good thing, because the United States is
a very attractive destination for foreign capital flows. But it has
also created this imbalance that we call the current account deficit.
I do believe the current account deficit needs to come down over
a period of time. I think there are a number of elements needed
to do that. Part of it would be to increase U.S. national savings
through both private savings and public savings. It would also be
useful for our trading partners to do a number of things, including
allowing their exchange rates to float freely and be determined by
the market and relying less on exports as a source of demand for
their economies.
So we need to rebalance the global international system. I believe
that can be done over a period of time, but it will not happen over-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

33
night. And I think the Federal Reserve’s main objective should be
to maintain domestic employment and price stability and to allow
other factors to be predominant in curing the current account situation.
Senator STABENOW. Let us talk for a moment; you mentioned
floating currencies. Currency manipulation is of great concern to
me and many of my colleagues. We had a very strong vote; I believe it was 67 Members of the Senate, both parties, a year ago
that sent a very strong message about how we want that to stop,
particularly with China; China, and Japan is also a concern,
whether it be as aggressive or an open process in Japan.
We have a process where the Treasury Secretary comes in every
6 months, gives us a report. This past summer, he issued his semiannual report and was not able to bring himself to recognize that
China is, in fact, manipulating their currency. We all know it is
happening. Everybody in my State knows; any businessperson
knows that is happening.
But once again, we have in November, now, this month, we will
have access to another report. I fear that it will be the same as
other reports, technically indicating that currency manipulation is
not happening. Do you believe the Federal Reserve has a role to
play in ensuring that economies around the world allow market
forces to determine the value of their currency?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, let me begin by saying that I think it
is very much in China’s own interest to allow their currency to
float freely and be determined by the market. They are a very large
country. They need to have independent monetary policy. It is difficult for them to continue sterilizing their interventions the way
they have been doing, so I believe that they will come to the recognition, and I hope they do, that it is in their interest to allow
their currency to be determined by market forces.
With respect to the Federal Reserve’s role, the Treasury usually
takes the lead in matters of currency negotiation and the like, but
the Federal Reserve is active in providing advice and assisting in
whatever way possible, and I would certainly do that.
Senator STABENOW. I would just comment that when you are
talking about China’s best interests, I would just note that we have
lost over 1.5 million manufacturing jobs in America, which is where
my focus is, and our focus is on America, American businesses, and
American jobs. We have lost over 1.5 million jobs because of currency manipulation.
And while I appreciate that we can hope that someday, China
will get there, because it is in their interests, it has been long in
our interests to have stopped this along with counterfeiting and a
number of other issues that have created an unlevel playing field
for our businesses and our workers.
So, I realize that is not directly under your purview, but I would
hope that your knowledge and leadership would be used as we talk
about the broad economic factors that allow us to create those good
paying jobs that we desperately need to keep and expand upon in
this country, and certainly, what we are doing to enforce, or in this
case, not enforce trade laws has a tremendous impact on that, and
certainly, currency manipulation is one of those things.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

34
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bayh.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EVAN BAYH

Senator BAYH. Welcome, Doctor, and I want to thank you for the
visit you were kind enough to pay on me a week ago. I enjoyed our
discussion. As I told you at the time, I look forward to supporting
your nomination and was impressed by your combination of both
theoretical and practical concerns, which is the combination that I
think we need in a Fed Chairman.
Doctor, let me begin by asking a stylistic question, if I might.
And I would like to quote from an article in today’s New York
Times, which concludes by saying, ‘‘As an academic economist and
as a Fed Governor, Mr. Bernanke prided himself on speaking clearly and sometimes even bluntly.’’ It then goes on to say that perhaps
to satisfy the concerns of Members of Congress but also the bond
market said to satisfy both constituencies, he may have to sacrifice
his plain speaking.
Is that true? I, for one, am hoping that you can continue to speak
your mind in a language the American people can understand.
Mr. BERNANKE. I will certainly try to speak clearly on all occasions, Senator.
Senator BAYH. Good. I guess we will have to be the judge of that
as we go forward, but I hope you will endeavor to do that. Clarity
and transparency, I think, are normally better than the alternatives, so I hope you will stick to your stylistic guns.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Senator BAYH. Let me ask you about current account balances,
if I might. And let me follow up on something that I think both
Senators Reed and Stabenow were asking and also quote from today’s New York Times. It says of the more than $30 trillion in foreign investment tracked by the Bank of International Settlements
in the first 3 months of 2005, 42.5 percent were in dollars, 39.3
percent were in euros. The dollar share was down 4 percentage
points from around 3 years earlier, while the euro share was up by
5 percentage points.
The reason these statistics were cited by Chairman Greenspan
was in furtherance of the notion that perhaps in accordance with
portfolio theory, some countries had reached the tipping point in
terms of their level of dollar-denominated assets. What is your take
on that?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, it is an open question. There is still
what Chairman Greenspan calls the home bias, the fact that most
countries still own a smaller share of dollar-denominated assets
than the U.S. share in the world economy. And so, it is a question
of judgment about how much more dollar assets foreign investors
will want to hold. My sense is that there is still a broad appetite
for dollar assets, both domestically and abroad, and as I indicated,
I do not expect to see any major shifts in that appetite. Clearly, we
will need to monitor the situation. We will need to watch the behavior of interest rates, the dollar, and other financial variables,
but I see no indication of any major shift in these flows in the nearterm.
Senator BAYH. Let me ask a question that I posed to you in our
meeting in my office, and that is the most likely course of events

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

35
is that there may be an orderly readjustment of the imbalances
that currently exist, but from time to time, events happen that lead
to disorderly movements. What should the appropriate policy response of our Government be if there were to be a precipitous decline in our currency, and what do we do about the conundrum
where, if you raise interest rates in the short-run to defend our
currency, it could have a stifling effect on the economy which, then,
in the longer-term, could have a depressing effect on our currency?
How do you strike the right balance there?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, in answering the question, first, we are
talking hypothetically.
Senator BAYH. I understand that.
Mr. BERNANKE. So, I want to be sure everyone understands that.
Senator BAYH. And by the way, forgive me for interrupting, but
as a Member of this body and admonishing you to speak bluntly
and clearly, perhaps we should look in the mirror. I want to just
put that on the record, too.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you, Senator.
The Federal Reserve has important responsibilities for maintaining financial stability that involves ensuring ex ante that banks,
for example, are managing their portfolios safely; that the clearing
and settlement systems are well-designed and secure; that there
are good arrangements in place for dealing with some kind of financial crisis no matter what its source should be; and ex post,
should there be a problem that there be plenty of liquidity provided
to the banking system and that the Fed would make sure that
whatever problems arise be brought to some venue where they can
be unwound, discussed, and assistance be given.
So broadly speaking, the Federal Reserve must deal with financial crises of all different kinds. There have been a variety of them.
Should an untoward movement in dollars and interest rates cause
financial stress, the same approach that the Federal Reserve has
taken in other circumstances would be applied in this case.
With respect to the macroeconomic implications, it would depend
on the overall impact on the economy. Again, the Federal Reserve’s
responsibility is maximum employment and price stability. So the
impact of the change in the dollar, interest rates, asset prices, however those things would occur, there would have to be an evaluation about what the net change would have to be in order to make
sure that the domestic economy is stabilized and is insulated from
the impact of these changes.
Senator BAYH. I have exceeded my time, but it would be a sticky
problem, would it not?
Mr. BERNANKE. Surely, it would be a sticky problem, and that is
why it is good to have an experienced staff and lots of experience
in the institution for dealing with these crises.
Senator BAYH. I am going to defer to my colleagues and stick
around for a few moments, but my concern in this regard is that
if, in fact, other countries have reached the point at which they are
not seeking to increase the percentage of dollar-denominated assets, then perhaps that increases the risk of an exogenous event of
some kind leading to a precipitous readjustment of the currency,
thereby presenting you with this possible hypothetical.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

36
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, if I may, there is demand for dollar assets not simply by foreigners but by Americans as well. And American household wealth, for example, is about $50 trillion. There is
an enormous demand for dollar-denominated assets, and so, I do
not expect that that demand would drop precipitously.
Senator BAYH. Let us hope.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Senator Bayh.
Dr. Bernanke, last week, the Banking Committee, as you probably knew, heard from the banking regulators, including the Federal Reserve, and several industry experts regarding the proposed
Basel II capital standards. While the regulators basically supported
moving forward, some with a little caution in the wind, the outside
experts, a lot of them former regulators, advised caution, raising
concerns about lower capital ratios and failure to factor in all risks
faced by banks.
What is your assessment of the Basel II proposal? I know you
have been on the Fed as a Member. And if you are confirmed as
Chairman, which I hope you will shortly, what will the Federal Reserve do to address the unanswered questions? And there are a lot
of unanswered questions and concerns raised regarding Basel II.
Mr. BERNANKE. Well, Chairman Shelby, Basel II or something
like it appears necessary. The banking system has become extraordinarily sophisticated financially. Basel I is no longer sufficient as
a means of determining adequate regulatory capital for the banking system. The Federal Reserve, the other banking regulators, and
international counterparties have worked for a number of years
trying to determine an appropriate system that would appropriately account for the complexity of the banking system.
Basel II tries to embody the notion that the amount of regulatory
capital should be based on modern risk management techniques,
which try to evaluate the risks associated with different kinds of
investments. It is true that there have been various concerns and
disagreements along the way. My sense is that the banking regulators are proceeding in a very cautious and slow way. In particular, as you know, they have delayed the implementation following the QIS–IV results, and moreover, there is going to be a series of safeguards, including, for example, a slow transition parallel
run where both Basel I and Basel II capital standards will be calculated, and there will be a floor based on the Basel I standards.
There will be a continual process of evaluation, of feedback, and of
comment.
There are various other safeguards as well, including the Pillar
II, which allows regulators to make additional assessments of capital, depending on their evaluation. And finally, I should just mention, among many other elements, both prompt corrective action
and the leverage ratio, which are two other ‘‘belts and suspenders’’
provisions, will remain in place to ensure that banks have sufficient capital.
So while I am not involved personally in all of the details at this
point, I expect I will be if I am confirmed. My sense is that regulators are moving very cautiously and very slowly to make sure
that the regulatory capital is going to be sufficient to make the
banking system safe and sound.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

37
Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.
I want to touch on the Fed’s role in crisis management, and I
hope you will not be confronted with crisis management, but I
know you will be. Over the past 20 years, the United States and
world economies have benefitted when the Federal Reserve took
swift and appropriate action to respond to various financial disturbances. Some now question whether the Federal Reserve will
have a more difficult time in the event of a future crisis because
of the large trade deficit and the large foreign official holdings of
U.S. Treasury debt we have been talking about.
Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that the Fed may
not have, may not have the same flexibility as it had in the past?
And what measures, if any, would you, as Fed Chairman, lead the
Federal Reserve in taking to prepare for its role in crisis management, which will come sooner or later?
Mr. BERNANKE. Chairman Shelby, it is certainly true that the
economy has become much more open, that capital flows are much
more important, that the current account is a much bigger issue,
and that certainly makes more complicated the Federal Reserve’s
objectives, both macro objectives and financial crisis management.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that the ability of the Federal Reserve to respond, to meet its objectives has been substantially compromised by this opening. It just makes the problem more complicated, requiring more expertise. I think, in fact, that the financial system has benefitted over the years from the meeting of a variety of financial crises, including, for example, September 11,
which has led to hardening and providing additional backup facilities.
The depth, liquidity, and flexibility of the financial markets have
increased greatly. The strength of the clearing systems of the major
financial centers has been improved. So certainly, I agree that we
can never be complacent about financial crisis, and I will certainly
make every effort to be prepared for whatever may come my way.
But I do believe that progress has been made in strengthening the
system to be more resilient in the face of shocks.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes, would you like to ask any
questions?
Senator SARBANES. Yes, I do indeed. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Bernanke, I have a number of questions I want to run
through as quickly as I can. Before I do that, though, I do want
to observe that—let me start, and then, I will come back to that.
On Basel II, which you just responded to the Chairman about,
it seems to me you are being much too sanguine. They did the
quantitative impact study. They found that more than half of the
participating institutions would show a capital reduction of 25 percent or more; in some instances, up to 50 percent, which, of course
raised a lot of red flags about the safety and soundness of the system and the adequate capital. Do you think that prompt corrective
action and the leverage capital requirements could be maintained
if risk-based capital levels fell significantly below the leverage
ratio?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

38
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I guess the good news about QIS–IV is
that it led the regulators to stop, take stock, and to try to understand the results.
Senator SARBANES. Which only raises the question, how did we
get so far down this path that when they ran it through the models, it brought this absolutely show-stopping result? How did that
happen? I mean, we keep holding these hearings; Chairman Shelby, to his credit, has really exercised a lot of oversight over this repeatedly. Everyone says, well, we are working it all out. It is going
to be good, you know; and then, all of a sudden, they do a quantitative run on the thing, and everyone says wow, how did we get
to this posture?
How did that happen?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, various issues have been identified that
will help explain the results. I do not have to go through all of
them; to give one example, some of the results were based on relatively good times and did not include some weak periods of the
economy that give a higher loss rate. But what it does emphasize—
and here, I agree with you, Senator—is that it is very important
that this be done right, and we need to learn from these exercises.
If they were purely mechanical, they would not be worth doing.
So we need to go slowly and cautiously and learn from these exercises and make sure that capital is adequate, and I agree with
that 100 percent.
Senator SARBANES. Well, I want to commend to you—I will not
pursue this question, because there are a number of others to ask,
that there was a panel after we heard from the regulators, including former FDIC Chairman William Isaac and former FDIC Chairman William Seidman, and Isaac said a number of things, but I
quote him: He says ‘‘Basel II will be used to reduce large bank capital ratios and either place small banks at a competitive disadvantage or force regulators to lower bank capital ratios.’’ Neither option is acceptable public policy.
And Seidman, and these are two experienced people, said the
original intent of Basel II was to more closely align minimum regulatory capital with actual risk, not to materially reduce overall capital levels within the banking system. And I strongly commend the
testimony of that second panel to you as you move ahead to examine this question.
Let me ask you about remittances. I know this is an issue you
have been interested in. A recent study by the Inter-American Development Bank said Latin American immigrants will send over
$50 billion in remittances to their family and friends in their countries of origin, the vast majority of which is from the United States.
We have been concerned about the state of the remittance market, especially that individuals are using methods of transmitting
remittances that are outside the financial mainstream and therefore often subject to high fees and often to hidden charges in the
form of unfavorable exchange rates.
You have studied this issue. You have said typical nonbank fees
for remittances remain high on an absolute basis, and consumers
who deal with the less scrupulous providers of remittance services
may bear a significant financial cost. I think we have an oppor-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

39
tunity here to get immigrants into the financial mainstream, using
the remittance issue in order to do that.
Would it be your intention to work on this issue as Chairman of
the Fed, and do you think there is a role that the Fed can play in
helping to achieve this goal of greater fairness for the immigrants
who are doing the remittances and their inclusion in the financial
system?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, yes, I do. As my same speech that you
are alluding to discussed, I think this is an excellent opportunity
for mainstream financial institutions to bring immigrant communities into their organizations, to give them not only remittance
services but also other services, savings, borrowing, and the like.
And it is an opportunity that many of these organizations are already undertaking.
The Federal Reserve is involved in this in numerous ways,
through bank supervision and regulation but also through, for example, the Fed ACH system, which has been set up with Mexico
to permit easier remittance payments, through financial education
and in managing the risks that are involved in these activities.
So, I think it is an important issue. It is very important, obviously, for the immigrants themselves and for the countries that are
receiving the remittances, and I will continue to be interested in
that.
Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I have
a few more.
Chairman SHELBY. You go ahead.
Senator SARBANES. Well, you have people who have not had their
first round. And Bob Bennett is here, too.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bennett.
Senator SARBANES. And Senator Schumer is here.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sarbanes,
and I listened to this conversation about the current account and
foreign ownership, and I have a fundamental question: Where else
are they going to go?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, that was part of my response.
Senator BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. BERNANKE. American assets are very attractive assets, and
they will be an important part of any international portfolio and,
of course, of Americans’ portfolios as well.
Senator BENNETT. Sure; I mean, I would not want to invest a lot
of my retirement money anyplace else but in the American economy, and it is a logical place. Where else are they going to go?
I would like to pursue a little bit another question. We talked
about inflation. We talked about price stability and price stability
being the target and the old idea that inflation and employment
are tied together, and you cannot have high employment without
overheating the economy. And so you have to make a choice, and
I think we have broken that link and decided you can have price
stability and tight labor markets at the same time, because we
have seen some of that before the recent recession.
What causes inflation? That becomes the fundamental question
here, and there are some who would suggest that inflation is
caused by too much growth, and the way to control inflation is to
control growth. But we have had low inflation, and we have had

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

40
growth in excess of 3 percent of GDP, sometimes up to 4 percent
of GDP without the sense that the economy was overheating.
Could you just explain that in your best professorial manner to
a graduate student here who wants to know how you are feeling
about this whole question of whether or not inflation is caused by
too much growth, and if not, by what?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, growth itself and growth capacity are
ultimately determined by productivity, which again, depends on
issues like regulation, taxation, innovation, technology, and the
like, and also by employment growth—the number of workers
available and the increase in their labor supply. So those are the
fundamental factors that determine growth.
The amount of available growth varies over time according to
economic conditions. It can be high. The United States has had
good economic policies and good technologies that have promoted
growth in recent years. So, in that sense, strong growth does not
create inflation.
If financial conditions are such, though, that aggregate demand,
aggregate spending is greater than even the growth that underlying conditions can permit, then, there can be increased pricing
power, excess demand, and pricing pressures can increase. In that
case, you can get some inflation.
I agree with your original statement, though, that in the longrun, the most important relationship is between low inflation and
high growth. That is, when inflation is kept low and stable, and expectations are kept low and stable, then the economy will be more
stable, and more growth will be possible. So, I think that is the
most fundamental relationship between the two variables.
Senator BENNETT. Well, I have always said wealth is created by
two things: One is accumulated capital, and the other is risk taking
and that we need policies, both fiscal policy and monetary policy,
that encourage both the accumulation of capital and the willingness to take risks. I realize tax policy comes into that, because if
you tax accumulated capital and thereby make it less attractive, or
if you tax the rewards so that I take a risk, but I am not going
to get that much of a reward out of it; but taking those two, the
role of accumulated capital and risk taking in creating growth, talk
about the Fed’s role with respect to that, because you do not control taxation.
Mr. BERNANKE. No, the Fed’s role is to keep inflation low and
stable, and that makes markets work better. It reduces risks in the
market, causes people to spend less time worrying about the value
of money and more time about businesses and innovations and
changes that will make the economy better. So that is, I think, the
main contribution the Fed can make is to ensure long-run price
stability. In the short-run, the Fed can respond to various shocks
to the economy and try and keep things on an even keel, but all
that works best when inflation is kept low and stable.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Schumer. This will be your first
round.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

41
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding these hearings. I want to thank you, Mr. Bernanke, for
being here. I apologize I could not be here earlier. I was over on
the House side.
And we have had some extensive discussions, and you have answered most of my questions satisfactorily; a few I would like to
go over even though we talked about them when we met: China;
now, in May of this year, you told this Committee, I am quoting
you, ‘‘For large economies like China and the United States, it is
preferable to have a market-determined, flexible exchange rate.
And China should move as expeditiously as possible toward loosening up its exchange rate. They are now ready to go to a more
flexible rate regime, and I would encourage them to do that.’’
That states your views correctly and without any modification?
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes, Senator.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay; let me ask you a couple of questions
about that. First, do you believe that our current account deficit is
sustainable?
Mr. BERNANKE. I believe we need to bring it down over a period
of time, yes.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay; do you think that China and its particular inability or unwillingness to let the currency float is contributing to that current account deficit?
Mr. BERNANKE. It is a contribution, but there are many other
factors as well.
Senator SCHUMER. Right.
Mr. BERNANKE. Including the very high savings rate around the
world and the export-led strategies of some other economies.
Senator SCHUMER. Right; do you believe the Chinese engage in
mercantilist policies? You had said you did when we talked. Could
you just elaborate a little bit?
Mr. BERNANKE. They have adopted a development strategy,
which other countries have also adopted which focuses on exportled growth; that is, that they are looking to export in order to help
their economy grow. They see advantages in being able to sell to
a global market, one that is more technologically sophisticated, and
it has been proved a method that has helped them in their rapid
growth process.
Senator SCHUMER. But they try to maximize imports and minimize imports; would that be fair to say?
Mr. BERNANKE. I am not sure about imports. In some cases, the
imports are quite important; for example, China is a platform, and
they bring in goods and services, bring in goods from other parts
of Asia and reproduce them.
Senator SCHUMER. Right. But their goal is to increase their overall wealth. That is what a mercantilist policy would be.
Mr. BERNANKE. They have focused on exports as a way of trying
to increase their growth, yes.
Senator SCHUMER. Now, second question is China did promise to
allow market forces to affect the value of the yuan, and yet, the
currency has moved as much in nearly 4 months as they said they
would allow it to move in a day; in other words, the total amount

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

42
of movement. Is it your view that China has kept its promise to
allow the yuan to move with market forces?
Mr. BERNANKE. I think they need to do more to allow their exchange rate to become more flexible and more market-driven.
Senator SCHUMER. Obviously, it would not move so little if they
were not intervening, and it would be better if they did not or at
least gradually moved away from it; I assume you assume that is
correct.
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay; could you just talk a little bit about a
reasonable timetable for China to allow its currency to float freely?
Are they ready to do it immediately? That would be one extreme.
Should it take 10 years? That might be another extreme. Could you
talk a little bit about what you think is a reasonable timetable for
them? I am not going to pin you down to 2 years, 6 months, but
just talk to us a little about that.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I think that they will go somewhat
slowly. They want to make sure that their economy is ready for the
flexible exchange rate. They are looking at the institutional factors
involved in trading, the exchange rate, and the like. I would be
very reluctant to give a timetable.
Senator SCHUMER. Are they moving too slowly now?
Mr. BERNANKE. I would like to see them make further progress
on this issue.
Senator SCHUMER. Okay; thank you, Mr. Chairman. Time is up.
Chairman SHELBY. I believe it comes back—no, it comes back to
you, does it not?
Senator BAYH. I would be on my second round.
Chairman SHELBY. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh.
Senator BAYH. Doctor, I would just observe I am a little concerned about a cavalier attitude with regard—not on your part, just
in general—about the current account imbalance and the attitude
of, well, where else are they going to go? I can see the Chancellor
of the Exchequer having made a comment like that in the 1930’s
or the 1940’s, and in fact, history evolved in a way that there was
an alternative, and that is where the global currency flows went.
It is also possible that other countries might choose to make decisions that we would view as suboptimal in terms of the return on
their investments for other reasons of state; for example, to pressure us on national security issues of some kind involving, just to
pick at random, the issue of Taiwan, for example. There are occasionally nationalist issues that trump economic interests. And that
is one of the reasons that I am somewhat concerned about just saying, well, the current account deficit can run forever at, what, 6
percent now and maybe larger. Eventually, this has to unwind in
some way or other, and it had best be orderly rather than disorderly, so that is the nature of my questioning.
I would like to shift and ask about the budget imbalances, the
different imbalances that we are running. I think in our conversation, we both agreed that there was some level at which an internal momentum begins to take hold when a deficit gets to a certain
size and the interest payments begin to build and the snowball ef-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

43
fect, for lack of a better term, and as I recall, that was around 2
percent or thereabouts; is that correct in your opinion?
Mr. BERNANKE. Not precisely. A 2 percent deficit is about consistent with a stable ratio of debt-to-GDP. So maintaining a deficit
at that level, while not optimal, it would be better to get it lower,
at least does not have the property of raising the debt-to-GDP
ratio. There can be periods of higher deficits. I expect we will see
one with the costs of Katrina, for example.
Senator BAYH. Well, indeed, we are already in one. I think our
current deficit-to-GDP is about 2.7 percent, excluding Katrina.
Mr. BERNANKE. So as long as the deficit returns to a sustainable
level over a period of time, then the debt-to-GDP ratio also will stabilize. But I am not disagreeing in the sense that I think it is very
important, and here, my main concern is the long-run entitlement
issues, which I have already alluded to, which are going to put very
heavy burdens on the fisc. In order to prepare for those heavy burdens, I think we do need to begin to try to reduce the deficit, try
to reduce spending, try to bring the budget closer to balance so that
we will be prepared to deal with those long-term entitlement——
Senator BAYH. Here is the reason for my question: If we are already at 2.7, then, we agree that we are above the rate at which
the debt level-to-GDP begins to increase. Therefore, any decision,
be it spending or on the tax side that increases the deficit only exacerbates that situation; I think by definition, that is correct, is it
not?
Mr. BERNANKE. If you take as a baseline the midsummer,
midsession review earlier this year——
Senator BAYH. Remember my admonition from the Times about
speaking bluntly.
Mr. BERNANKE. I will speak bluntly.
Senator BAYH. I am teasing.
Mr. BERNANKE. That baseline had a declining deficit-to-GDP
ratio over the next few years.
Senator BAYH. Which timeline was that, Doctor?
Mr. BERNANKE. Over the next 5 years, the midsession review
shows the deficit as a share of GDP declining over time. However,
there are important risks to that projection. Obviously, since the
summer, we have had Katrina, which will have a near-term impact. Another concern I would raise for you is the reliance for revenue on the alternative minimum tax, which the Congress is not
willing to allow to actually take effect.
So it is, I think, important for Congress to consider whether either to allow the alternative minimum tax to actually take effect
or alternatively to undertake a tax reform or other measures that
replace that revenue with some other form of revenue.
Senator BAYH. Let me ask you one final question: I am occasionally asked this, and it is always a little hard for me. But I find that
a certain amount of reflection and introspection sometimes is—I
can learn more sometimes from things that maybe did not go quite
as I expected as much as I can from things that went as I expected.
Looking back in the different public policy pronouncements that
you have made and situations that you thought you had analyzed
correctly at the time, can you point to anything that just did not

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

44
turn out quite the way you expected and what you learned from
that instance?
Mr. BERNANKE. Well, in 2003, there was an episode where there
was clearly a miscommunication between the Federal Reserve and
the bond markets, and it caused a significant fluctuation in the
bond markets. This was over the issue of whether there was some
risk of deflation going forward. And clearly, there was a misunderstanding about that risk. It impressed on me the importance of
speaking clearly and communicating clearly and making sure that
there is understanding on both sides about what the Fed is saying
and what the Fed is intending to do.
Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Doctor. I wish you the
best.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. I believe it is back to me, Dr. Bernanke. In
your previous tenure, Dr. Bernanke, when you were a Member of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, you spoke regarding, ‘‘a global savings glut.’’ Others have, too. Would you elaborate
just for the record further on the potential causes of this behavior
and whether our Nation’s economy has ever experienced similar
circumstances? And should this situation persist, how would this
affect the Federal Reserve’s economic projections if it would? We
realize that there is capital in the world, which is money, I guess,
savings.
Mr. BERNANKE. The global savings glut idea attempts to point
out that the current account deficit of the United States is not simply or entirely a product of U.S. economic policies. It is a global
phenomenon created by global forces; in particular, I argued in the
speech that over the last 10 years or so, the amount of savings
around the world has exceeded desired investment in those same
countries, for various reasons, including the aging of some industrial economies, the oil revenues of crude producers, and most importantly, the fact that emerging market economies over the last
10 years have gone from being significant borrowers in international capital markets to large lenders, to having large current
account surpluses.
As a result, there have been enormous amounts of capital
dumped into international capital markets, which helps to account
for the fact that global interest rates are at record lows or, at least,
at very low levels. The inflows of that capital into the United
States, which is an attractive destination for this capital, and the
resulting impact on asset pricing in the United States is, in my
view, part of the reason why Americans have increased their consumption and reduced their savings, which has resulted in this current account deficit.
Now, as I have argued already today, I do not view the current
account deficit as desirable. I think there are a number of reasons
to try to end it, but in order to end it or at least to wind it down
over a period of time, it is going to require action both within the
United States and also within our trading partners. On the part of
the United States, we need to increase our own savings relative to
investment.
With respect to our trading partners, there needs to be, first, increased reliance on flexible exchange rates, as we already dis-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

45
cussed, and also, more willingness on the part of our trading partners to rely on domestic spending—domestic government purchases
or consumption—to drive their economies as opposed purely to an
export-led strategy.
Chairman SHELBY. Is it basically true that in a global economy
where you have market forces working that capital would know no
boundaries? It would look for its best investment, would it not?
Mr. BERNANKE. That is correct, but at this point, some of the
savings which is coming to the United States might well be served
by going, say, to emerging market economies, which are, because
they have perhaps inadequate infrastructures or insufficient transparency, are not receiving as much capital as, in some sense, would
be ideal. I think a more balanced global situation will be one where
there is a closer balance between saving and investment both in
the United States and abroad.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.
Senator SARBANES. Just to follow up on the Chairman’s point
quickly, is some of that capital not coming from emerging market
countries or developing economies?
Mr. BERNANKE. Yes, Senator, a great deal of it.
Senator SARBANES. And what is the rationale for that? Why
should they be sending capital into the world’s most advanced economy? Is not something—at least what economics I learned, that is
the wrong way for the flows to be going in terms of building up
worldwide prosperity.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, your basic point is right. Normally, you
would expect to see capital flowing into emerging market economies rather than out of emerging market economies. The proximate
cause of this switch, I would argue, were the financial crises of the
late 1990’s, which occurred in a variety of emerging market economies in East Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere and led them to
be much more cautious about accepting capital inflows and to focus
more on building up their reserves, building up their current accounts and looking more to an export-oriented strategy.
So, I think it is the effects of the financial crises, which, over a
period of time, I expect will wane, but that was the main impetus,
I believe, for this shift in strategy on the part of the emerging market countries.
Senator SARBANES. Yes, but I take it you regard it as undesirable; I know in a speech, you said in the longer-term, however, the
current pattern of international capital flows, should it persist,
could prove counterproductive. Most important, for the developing
world to be lending large sums on net to the mature industrial
economies is quite undesirable as a long-run proposition.
Mr. BERNANKE. That is correct.
Senator SARBANES. You still agree with that statement, do you
not?
Mr. BERNANKE. In the short-run, and I agree with Senator Bennett, given that these countries have high savings, and they are
unable to make full use of those savings domestically, it is understandable that they would send capital to the United States, which
has very deep, liquid, and strong capital markets. Over a period of
time—not immediately but over a long period of time—a greater

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

46
balance, which would involve more of these funds going into emerging markets, I think, would be desirable.
Senator SARBANES. You are on record as opposing the use of
monetary policy to control asset bubbles, as I understand it, whether in the stock market or the housing market. Instead, you have
stated a far better approach is to use micro-level policies to reduce
the incidence of bubbles, to protect the financial system against
their effects.
The Wall Street Journal ran an article recently entitled ‘‘Concerns Mount About Mortgage Risks,’’ which reported, ‘‘In the latest
sign of how frothy the housing market has become, new data show
the degree to which people are stretching to buy homes in a hot
housing market. The data from the Mortgage Bankers Association
show that adjustable rate and interest only mortgages accounted
for nearly two-thirds of mortgage originations in the second half of
last year.’’
Alan Fishbein, the Director of Housing and Credit Policy at the
Consumer Federation of America, called it a game of musical
chairs. Somebody is going to have the chair pulled out from under
them when they find prices have leveled out and then try to sell,
only to find they cannot sell for what they paid for it.
Are you concerned about the potential for a bubble in the housing market? And specifically, does the drastic increase in the use
of risky financing schemes, including interest only and even negative amortization mortgages, concern you?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, as I understand, the Federal Reserve is
reviewing these practices with the idea of issuing guidance about
so-called ‘‘nontraditional mortgages.’’ I think it is important to
make sure that mortgages of the nontraditional type—whether
they are interest only, option ARM’s, or other similar types of mortgages—that first, they are consistent with safety and soundness on
the part of the lenders, and second, that consumers who are using
these mortgages fully understand the implications of holding these
mortgages should, for example, housing prices decline or interest
rates rise.
I think it is very important to look at these instruments, and I
believe that doing so would have, on the margin, some beneficial
effects in reducing speculative activity in some local markets. However, overall, I think the main reason to look at these instruments
is to make sure that banks are protected and that the consumers
are protected against the potential risks of these instruments.
Senator SARBANES. Chairman Shelby and this Committee, and I
have joined with him on it in expressing our concern that the Federal banking agencies are not taking a sufficiently aggressive and
sophisticated attitude toward examining institutions with respect
to money laundering. There have been some very bad examples.
What will you do to evaluate and improve the strength of the
Fed’s consolidated supervisory activity in this area? I am getting
into the dimension of your responsibilities that involve your regulatory function, which does not always draw, I think, the attention
that it warrants or requires.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, the Bank Secrecy Act and the
antimoney laundering rules are very important. Obviously, they
bear on terrorist finance and money laundering by criminal organi-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

47
zations, and the Congress has passed a set of rules which require
banks to be very careful to try to prevent such activities from occurring.
It is an important responsibility of the Federal Reserve to enforce
those laws. I will certainly be interested in those activities. As I
understand, the Federal Reserve’s approach to enforcing so-called
‘‘BSA/AML provisions’’ is a risk-focused approach, which means
that the Federal Reserve attempts to evaluate whether the banks’
or other financial institutions’ procedures and processes are sufficiently good to ensure compliance with the law rather than trying
to evaluate every individual transaction.
I think that is a good approach. It is one that allows the Federal
Reserve to evaluate the overall ability of the institution to meet the
law without incurring the heavy costs and the heavy regulatory
burden of checking each and every individual submission.
Senator SARBANES. Well, I know I am intruding on Senator Bennett’s time. If I could just close out this question.
I have this concern: In some instances, the money laundering
violation, which, of course, have an antiterrorism financing important dimension to them as well, have been, as it were, found and
corrective action taken by the Federal Reserve System or State
banking systems. But in other situations, and a number of large
banks are involved in that, the violations have reached such a level
of seriousness that they warranted criminal investigation by the
Department of Justice, which, of course raises a question of how do
you explain situations in which senior officials of major financial
institutions are found to have come sufficiently close to the line
that criminal investigations of their conduct, and of their institution, are appropriate?
In other words, where were the gatekeepers or the watchmen,
which are the banking regulatory agencies, where were they at an
earlier stage in this process instead of it having gone to the level
or deteriorated to the level that criminal action by the Department
of Justice was called for? It seems to me that is a fairly clear call
for the financial institution regulators to be more active in meeting
their responsibilities.
Mr. BERNANKE. I agree with that, Senator.
Senator SARBANES. Okay; thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bennett.
Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One last area I would like to explore with you, Dr. Bernanke, is
your attitude toward commodity prices as an indicator of inflation.
I remember many years ago the standard position was well, when
the stock market is going up, you buy stocks. When the stock market is going down, you buy gold. And it is just very simple. You
take the cyclical nature of things, and your hedge against everything going to pot is gold. And then, once the bottom has been
reached, you sell your gold, and you start with stocks.
I do not know that anybody is that simplistic anymore except
maybe on the advertising pages of some magazines where the people are trying to sell gold. But what about other commodities? I
know an economist whom you know very well and whom I respect
very tremendously, Wayne Angel, is always looking at a basket of
commodities, not necessarily gold by itself but commodities gen-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

48
erally, foreign exchange rates, indicators of where we should be in
policy; you get an individual commodity like natural gas that is an
anomaly because of the tremendous demand that has been created
by natural gas. So maybe you take that out of the basket.
But just talk to us about your attitude toward commodities in
general, some of these other basket issues, gold, foreign exchange
rates, and so on in terms of what you see as their value as indicators of where the economy is really going.
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, there is no perfect forecaster, no perfect
indicator of inflation. Each of the variables you mention has an inflation component, so to speak. It reflects inflationary pressures. It
may reflect other things as well. As you mentioned, natural gas or
other energy commodities reflect supply and demand conditions
arising from international pressures in international markets, for
example. Exchange rates reflect inflation pressures. They may also
reflect the balance of trade and other factors.
So there is no single, optimal indicator of inflation. My personal
strategy, therefore, is to be very eclectic and to look at a wide
range of indicators, and among those is commodities, gold, exchange rates, the whole list. I think interest rates, real side indicators, surveys, expectations—there is a whole list of variables which
can be useful in forecasting inflation—and I think one has to be
very open-minded about using whatever information one has.
Senator BENNETT. Let us talk about productivity in the same
way. Bob Woodward’s book about Chairman Greenspan indicates a
situation where he challenged existing data points on productivity
and ended up forcing the Fed to restructure the way they monitored it. And he proved by saying, and I have heard him say this,
and I am sure you have, too, well, this violates the laws of arithmetic. By taking an equation and putting in various pieces of the
equation, he said the remaining piece, productivity, has to be higher than your measurement of productivity.
Obviously, an understanding of productivity fits into this whole
discussion that we are having. Do you have any view as to the various measures of productivity and how it should be reported?
Mr. BERNANKE. I draw two lessons from that late 1990’s experience that Bob Woodward was referring to. The first is that you do
not just look at the conventional measures. You look at the data
quite deeply and try to understand how the data are constructed
and how they relate to each other, because there may be anomalies
that will be instructive, and that was the case in the late 1990’s.
The other is that published Government data is not the only
source of information. It is also important to talk to people in the
marketplace, to talk to businesspeople. I think in the case of Chairman Greenspan, he had indications from businesspeople that they
were making extraordinary gains in productivity based on new information and communications technologies.
So by putting together those clues, I think one tries to make an
inference about the general state of the economy and productivity
being one of the major variables to look at.
Senator BENNETT. I have the sense that our failure to understand the impact of productivity in the information age is one of
the reasons why we feel as confused as we do in some areas. We
have industrial age mentality in the information age reality. And

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

49
that can be a problem. Just one last quick comment: You do not
need to answer this. This is just an admonition.
One of my major focuses in the Senate has to do with cyber security. And I have raised this with Chairman Greenspan in the past.
If I were someone who wished this country ill, I would be more
anxious to find a way to hack into the computer system and shut
down the Fed wire than I would to try to find a way to get a suitcase nuclear device into lower Manhattan, because the damage to
the economy of shutting down the Fed wire would be greater than
the damage by a nuclear explosion from a suitcase bomb virtually
anywhere, whether it was lower Manhattan or Pennsylvania Avenue or whatever it might be.
I hope in your stewardship as the Chairman of the Fed, you pay
attention to cyber terrorism and the vulnerability that we have to
those who might break in, and hack in. The more time I spend on
this, the more concerned I become, and I know the financial community generally with its various firewalls and ways of trying to
hang onto the data is moving ahead, but every time I look at it,
the next generation of attackers is substantially more sophisticated
than the one that was there just 18 months ago, and our ability
to private security must always be working ahead on that. So
among the other things you have to do, do not neglect that particular morsel as it gets put on your plate.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.
Senator SARBANES. I want to follow up Senator Bennett’s point,
but I want to not go as—because he is dealing with people who are
very calculatingly trying to do this thing, but this year, several financial institutions as well as private companies, government
agencies, universities, and other entities have reported breaches of
Social Security numbers, credit and debit numbers, security codes,
bank account information, and other sensitive information. In fact,
The Washington Post had a story; they said, ‘‘American corporations that eat your personal information for breakfast have suffered
troubling data breaches over the past year or so, making the data
on more than 50 million consumers vulnerable.’’
Now, there is a coalition of 12 consumer groups concerned about
privacy who have expressed very deep concerns about this. As
Chairman of the Fed, would you work with the financial institutions that you regulate to reduce the likelihood of future data
breaches? And further, would you be prepared to meet with these
interested groups, this coalition of consumer groups concerned
about financial privacy to review with them and to discuss this important issue?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, I believe the banking regulators have
already at least issued guidance, or perhaps a regulation, about
data breaches that applies to financial institutions, which is the
group that they regulate. And I believe the Congress is considering
similar legislation for other entities. It is a very important issue.
I think the Federal Reserve and the other banking regulators have
already taken some steps in this direction about providing rules
about how to protect data and how to react to data breaches.
To answer the second part of your question, I hope to meet
broadly with a large number of people, including the groups that

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

50
you referred to. I think it is important for the Federal Reserve
Chairman not to confine himself to Wall Street analysts but to
speak to a wide range of people in the economy with different interests and different viewpoints, and I intend to do that.
Senator SARBANES. Warren Buffett has warned us that derivatives are time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and
the economic system. The Financial Times has said so far, there
has been no explosion, but the risks of this fast growing market remain real. How do you respond to these concerns?
Mr. BERNANKE. I am more sanguine about derivatives than the
position you have just suggested. I think, generally speaking, they
are very valuable. They provide methods by which risks can be
shared, sliced, and diced, and given to those most willing to bear
them. They add, I believe, to the flexibility of the financial system
in many different ways.
With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are
traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to
use them properly. The Federal Reserve’s responsibility is to make
sure that the institutions it regulates have good systems and good
procedures for ensuring that their derivatives portfolios are wellmanaged and do not create excessive risk in their institutions.
Senator SARBANES. In a recent article in The New York Times,
they stated, ‘‘Seven years ago, Wall Street’s top bankers were
caught off guard by the near collapse of the Long Term Capital
hedge fund. Since then, the number and influence of hedge funds
have ballooned. The hedge fund explosion has prompted concerns
that if a big bet goes wrong, regulators and banks will again be
caught up in a collapse.’’ My recollection is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was convening all night, all weekend
meetings at the time of Long Term Capital Management, putting
enormous pressure on financial institutions to pick up on it in
order to prevent the very collapse that is mentioned here. How do
you respond to this concern? Equally sanguine?
Mr. BERNANKE. I think it is important not to be complacent.
Senator SARBANES. Not——
Mr. BERNANKE. Not to be complacent. It is important for the Federal Reserve to be aware of what is going on in the market, particularly working through the banks, which are the counterparties
of a lot of hedge funds, to understand their strategies and their positions.
Nevertheless, broadly speaking, my understanding is that the
hedge fund industry has become more sophisticated, more diverse,
less leveraged, and more flexible in the years since LTCM. So
again, while it is very important to understand that industry, and
particularly to make sure that the banks, are dealing in appropriate ways with hedge funds, my sense on that is that they are
a positive force in the American financial system.
Senator SARBANES. Do you think these issues contain a sufficient
danger in them that it would warrant the Fed undertaking a special examination of these questions if you were to become the
Chairman? Because if this went bad on your watch, I mean, there
could be tremendous consequences, obviously.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

51
Mr. BERNANKE. I think it is useful to have informal contacts to
try to understand what is going on in the market, and the Federal
Reserve has various mechanisms for learning about this market; in
particular, working through the various counterparties that deal
with hedge funds.
Senator SARBANES. Well, I commend this area to you as one that
should have some focus of your attention. Otherwise, it may well
come back to haunt you.
Could I ask you about HMDA and the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act? The data released in September showed that African-Americans and Hispanics pay more for home loans and face higher denial
rates than similarly situated White Americans. I understand the
Board has reviewed the HMDA data and flagged approximately
200 lenders for further scrutiny. And in fact, Governor Olson at the
Fed says anytime a lender differentiates, the burden of proof shifts
to the lender to demonstrate that the pricing differentials are
based on empirical analysis.
Would you agree with that, and how important do you think this
issue is that is revealed by the HMDA data?
Mr. BERNANKE. Senator, the facts you point out are correct. They
were revealed because the Federal Reserve asked for disclosures of
pricing information, as well as quantity and denial information. I
think fair lending is extremely important. The Federal Reserve is
going to follow up on these results. It is going to share the results,
or has already shared the results, with other bank regulators, and
the intention is to find out why these discrepancies exist.
Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close with a
couple of observations.
Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead. You take your time.
Senator SARBANES. We discussed this morning the inflation targeting, and I do not want to close out without referring back to it.
And I want to commend to you for your own thinking the danger
that if you had a numerical figure for inflation but not for unemployment, that there would be a shift in focus of policymaking and
debate toward whether the Fed was achieving its inflation target
and away from whether the Fed was achieving maximum employment through stabilizing output, whether you intended that to happen or not. I think it is easy enough to assert that it is not your
intention, that you are keeping the dual mandate in mind and so
forth.
But I think in the real world of the dynamics and particularly
in the way the media would cover such a question, the constant
focus is going to be have you hit the numbers target on your inflation goal and that it would, in effect, draw attention away from the
dual mandate and the emphasis we are placing on trying to balance the two.
I take some encouragement from your statement that if confirmed, you will take no precipitous steps in the direction of quantifying the definition of long-run price stability; that the matter requires further study at the Fed as well as extensive discussion and
consultation. I would propose further action only if a consensus can
be developed and that taking such a step would further enhance
the ability of the FOMC to satisfy its dual mandate of achieving
both stable prices and maximum sustainable employment.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

52
I do not think this is fully consistent with the Fed’s current policy approach, which is an assertion you make in your statement,
and obviously, there have been fellow Members of the Board who
have resisted inflation targeting for this very reason amongst other
reasons. So, I mean, you make that assertion, but there are a number of very thoughtful people who disagree with it very strongly.
Further, I refer back to earlier. I do not think you can change
the Fed’s mandate except by statute from the Congress, and I know
you are laying out a rationale where you interpret it in such a way
that it is encompassed within the mandate, but I think you have
to be extremely careful, and I particularly think, as I just said, that
if you have a figure for inflation and not for unemployment, the
public focus is going to be drawn to the inflation figure, and that
is going to become the overriding concern.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do welcome in Dr. Bernanke’s statement right at the outset where he talks about this prospective new
role and says, and I want to quote this, because I think it is very
important to underline it and again put it on the record: ‘‘I would
bear the critical responsibility of preserving the independent and
nonpartisan status of the Federal Reserve, a status that in my
view is essential to that institution’s ability to function effectively
and achieve its mandated objectives, in the plural, I might add. I
assure this Committee that if confirmed, I will be strictly independent of all political influences and will be guided solely by the
Federal Reserve’s mandate from Congress and by the public interest.’’
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SHELBY. Dr. Bernanke, we appreciate your appearance
here today at your hearing and especially when we had a bifurcated hearing with the votes in the Senate. We appreciate your
candor and your ability. I do not know of a Federal Reserve nominee, Chairman, that has as many publications under their belt as
you do. And I am not going to tell you that I have read all of them,
but they are interesting to go with.
But we will try to move your nomination as soon as possible. I
think it is a good nomination. I have said this from the beginning.
And I will be consulting with Senator Sarbanes and see what we
can do. Thank you for your time today.
Mr. BERNANKE. Thank you.
Chairman SHELBY. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, biographical sketch of nominee, response
to written questions, and additional material supplied for the
record follow:]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

53

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

54

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

55

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

56

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

57

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

58

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

59

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

60

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

61

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

62

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

63

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

64

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

65
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU
I join my colleagues in welcoming Dr. Ben Bernanke to the Committee. He is no
stranger. He has been here before, both to be a Member of the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors and then to be Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic
Advisers.
Of course, he has now been nominated to a 14-year term as a Member of the
Board of Governors and also nominated to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, a 4-year term.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established the Federal Reserve System,
set the 14-year terms for the Members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I think that clearly reflected the intention of Congress, at the time, in enacting this legislation to place the Federal Reserve Board and its individual Members
beyond the reach of any given Administration and the political pressures of the moment. Actually, the 14-year term is the longest we give to any official in the Government other than the lifetime appointments for members of the Federal judiciary.
I think it is fair to say, or certainly it has come to be the case, that the credibility
of the Federal Reserve rests in large part on broad confidence in its independence
in the judgments it makes. And, obviously, if that confidence were to be undermined, the stature of the Board would be gravely diminished. And that, in turn,
would have serious consequences, I think, not only for our National economy but
also, indeed, for the world economy.
So we are looking forward to hearing from Dr. Bernanke about this important role
of the independence of the Federal Reserve in rendering its judgments.
And my colleague, Senator Dodd, has made reference to the other major point I
wanted to make. And that was that the Federal Reserve Act provides as its goals
that, ‘‘The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system and the Federal Open
Market Committee shall maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production
so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and
moderate long-term interest rates.’’
And this is conveniently referred to as the twin mandates of the Federal Reserve,
addressing both maximum employment and stable prices.
That is another issue that I look forward to exploring with Dr. Bernanke in the
course of these hearings.
Actually, we had to contend for quite a while with this non-accelerating inflationary rate of unemployment, something that Chairman Greenspan, to his credit,
never accepted. That was the theory that if the unemployment rate got down to a
certain level, beyond that you would have inflation. And therefore, as it approached
that unemployment rate, the Fed would have to start raising interest rates to cool
off the economy, even if we did not see manifested inflationary signs.
So it was a preemptive strike against inflation, but it also, of course, ended up
being a preemptive strike against employment, if it had been followed.
Fortunately, that was not the case. And we have seen in recent years that we
have been able to go down—and we are now at 5 percent, but we have been able
to go down below that to a 4 percent unemployment rate without an inflationary
problem.
And I am anxious to explore that with Dr. Bernanke as well, since I think jobs
is a very important purpose of economic policy.
Let me just add one other dimension, which is not often talked about when we
talk about the Fed, and that is that the Board has responsibility, supervisory and
regulatory authorities to assure the safety and soundness of the Nation’s banking
and financial systems and protecting the credit rights of consumers.
In the area of consumer protection, the board has broad jurisdiction and authority
to implement regulations for a whole host of consumer laws: The Community Reinvestment Act, Truth in Lending Act, Truth in Saving Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure, the Home Owners Equity Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
and a number of others as well.
And while public attention is focused on the Board’s monetary policy responsibilities, I think it is important to recognize its jurisdiction and authority with respect
to these regulatory issues. The Board can play a very significant role in improving
consumer rights and enforcing consumer protections.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I noticed that the papers this morning are already setting
out an agenda. I just quote one paragraph to give one example of it:
If confirmed, Bernanke will take over the Fed at a moment of rising economic unease. The U.S. trade and budget deficits are soaring. The once-blistering housing market may be cooling. Rumors continue to rumble through
Wall Street of dangerously overextended hedge funds ripe for collapse. The

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 6621

Sfmt 6621

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

66
next Fed Chairman could face significant challenge, as Greenspan did,
within months of taking office.
Welcome to the committee this morning, Dr. Bernanke.
—————
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I am very pleased to again
welcome my fellow New Jerseyan, Dr. Bernanke, before the Committee, and to support his nomination to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Dr. Bernanke has a remarkable record of service and scholarship at the Council
of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve, and before that, Princeton University.
He has served in these roles with distinction as one of our Nation’s preeminent
economists, both in policymaking and in academia. Moreover, Dr. Bernanke has
earned great respect among lawmakers and economists from all points on the political spectrum who recognize the quality of his work regardless of whether they
agree with him on specific economic questions.
I have been concerned throughout the last few years that too many of this Administration’s high profile economic officials seem to be salesmen for predetermined,
ideologically-driven policies. Dr. Bernanke, however, has defied this stereotype during his time with the Council of Economic Advisors, and I trust he will continue
this pattern of basing his decisions on sound economics, rather than ideology and
partisanship.
Needless to say, Dr. Bernanke has large shoes to fill as Chairman. Alan Greenspan has been one of the most active and significant Chairmen in the history of the
Federal Reserve System. While I have not always seen eye-to-eye with Chairman
Greenspan on economic issues, I thank and salute him for his economic stewardship
through difficult times, and for more than 18 years of distinguished service to our
country.
I look forward to working with Dr. Bernanke in the future to strengthen our financial markets and to ensure economic opportunity for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 6621

Sfmt 6621

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

67
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BUNNING
FROM BEN S. BERNANKE

Q.1. As you know, I feel that Chairman Greenspan too often talked
publicly about things that had nothing to do with monetary policy.
Do you believe a Fed Chairman should discuss things outside the
Fed’s jurisdiction?
A.1. I believe that it is essential to maintain the independence and
nonpartisan status of the Federal Reserve. As I discussed in my
testimony, if confirmed, I will be strictly independent of all political
influences and will be guided solely by the Federal Reserve’s mandate from Congress and the public interest.
The scope of the Federal Reserve’s mandate is broad and includes matters related to the implementation of monetary policy,
general financial stability, supervision of financial institutions, administration of the payments system and consumer issues, among
other areas. In addressing these matters, I pledge always to give
Congress my best advice from the perspective of an independent
and nonpartisan Federal Reserve. I also intend to decline to address issues that are not related to the Federal Reserve’s broad
mandate.
Let me address specifically the area of fiscal policy. Because of
the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities for macroeconomic and financial stability, I believe it would be appropriate at times for me to
comment on broad fiscal issues such as the sustainability of Government spending or deficits. However, as I indicated during my
testimony, I will not advocate for or against specific tax or spending proposals that come before the Congress.
Q.2. As I am sure you read last week, The Wall Street Journal
asked a number of economists what questions they would like to
be able to ask you. I am going to steal a few from them. What is
the principal reason for the existence of the Federal Reserve?
A.2. The Federal Reserve System was created by the Congress in
1913 to provide the Nation with a safer, more flexible, and more
stable monetary and financial system. Today, the main duties of
the Nation’s central bank fall into four general areas:
• Conducting the Nation’s monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of the statutory objectives of maximum employment, stable prices, and
moderate long-term interest rates;
• Supervising and regulating banking institutions to promote the
safety and soundness of the Nation’s banking and financial system and helping to protect the rights of consumers in credit markets;
• Fostering the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets; and
• Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S.
Government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a
major role in operating the Nation’s payments system.
Each of these areas of responsibility reflects specific authority
granted by the Congress; and each, in my view, is essential for the
economic health of the country.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

68
Q.3. What is currently the most significant threat to our economic
expansion?
A.3. The U.S. economy is currently enjoying a strong and stable expansion. Over the past four quarters, real gross domestic product
(GDP) has grown more than 31⁄2 percent, extending the economic
upturn that began in late 2001. And the current consensus among
economists is that the expansion will be sustained next year.
However, this favorable outlook is ringed with a number of risks.
Energy prices have risen steeply in the past 3 years, and although
the economy has accommodated these rises remarkably well thus
far, continuing increases in the price of energy would pose difficult
challenges for households and businesses. The proximate cause of
the energy price increases is a rapidly growing global demand for
energy, coupled with insufficient investment in new energy supplies to meet this growth. In the long-run, high prices will curb energy demand and call forth new energy supplies. In the near-term,
however, energy price increases have the potential to spill over into
general inflation, sap consumer spending power, and damp overall
activity. A further jump in energy prices or a more pronounced reaction to those increases in prices that have already occurred could
test the strength of the expansion. With respect to inflation, the
Fed, thus far, has been largely successful in limiting the effects of
higher energy prices on the broader rate of price inflation. But further energy price increases would also pose upside risks to the outlook for inflation.
Developments in housing markets also bear close monitoring.
Housing prices have risen rapidly in recent years, and concerns
have been expressed in many quarters about whether the current
high level of prices will be sustained. It is intrinsically very difficult to assess whether the value the market assigns to any asset
is fundamentally justified, and housing is no exception to this rule.
Certainly, some powerful fundamental forces have contributed to
the run-up in housing prices, including growth in jobs and incomes,
demographic trends, low mortgage rates, and limited supplies of
buildable land in some areas. However, it is also true that exceptionally rapid price appreciation and what appears to be speculative buying have been observed in some local markets, suggesting
that prices may exceed fundamental values in some areas. Whatever the sources, house price increases will surely moderate at
some point, if they have not begun to do so already. If that moderation is not too sharp, then the slowing of consumption and residential investment that might result should be consistent with the
modest cooling of growth that many forecasters expect over the
next year or so. A sharper slowdown, less likely but possible, would
have a larger effect on the growth of real output, particularly if it
were to occur in the context of continued adverse developments in
energy markets.
Q.4. Are you concerned that the Basel II QIS–4 study showed there
would be a decline in capital standards for U.S. banks? Given the
fact that Congress has recently voted (to) increase FDIC coverage,
are you concerned about the safety and soundness of the banking
system with coverage increasing and capital possibly decreasing?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

69
A.4. The Federal Reserve and the other Federal banking agencies
were certainly concerned about the large drop in minimum regulatory capital observed in the QIS–4 study for some banks. Also,
the average decline in minimum regulatory capital for the participating banks collectively was larger than observed in the previous
QIS. Both the decline and the wider-than-expected dispersion
among the banks participating in QIS–4 caused the agencies in
April to take additional time to understand the QIS–4 results.
After conducting extensive additional analysis, the agencies announced on September 30 that they would be taking additional
prudential measures, including an extended timeline for Basel II
implementation and the addition of an extra year of capital floors
beyond those already in the framework.
I am sure that the Federal Reserve and the other agencies will
not countenance declines in capital of the amount that QIS–4 found
for some banks. Indeed, the motivation for conducting this and
other quantitative impact studies was to assess the potential effects of the framework in advance, so problems (such as an excessive decline in regulatory capital in some banks) could be identified
and mitigated. In addition, before any banks are permitted to operate under Basel II, they will go through a rigorous process of review and analysis by the supervisors to ensure that their internal
processes meet high standards. Importantly, there was no supervisory validation of the methods used by the banks in the QIS–4
exercise; the banks in the study participated on a best-efforts basis
without any supervisory oversight. Thus, some of the QIS–4 results
likely arose from the fact that banks were not fully prepared to operate under the Basel II framework and (in good faith) may have
used methods that would not be approved by regulators under a
‘‘live’’ application of the framework.
Besides the measures announced on September 30, supervisors
have a suite of regulatory tools to prevent excessive drops in regulatory capital, including the leverage ratio, prudential measures
under Pillar II of the Basel II framework, and the ongoing requirement of prompt corrective action. It is important to move to a more
sophisticated system that better links regulatory capital to the actual risks of banks’ lending books, trading books, and operations;
that is the purpose of Basel II. However, the transition needs to
be accomplished in a deliberate and careful manner, with many
checks and feedback mechanisms, in order to ensure that capital
is adequate and safety and soundness are ensured at all times.
The increase in FDIC deposit coverage would affect the entire
banking system, of course, not just the banks included in the QIS–
4 or that will ultimately adopt the Basel II framework. Most banks
covered by the FDIC will be subject to the agencies’ proposed
amended Basel I minimum regulatory capital framework, for which
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) has only recently been released. I assure you, as the process of rulemaking
proceeds, the capital impacts of these proposed amendments will
also be carefully analyzed to ensure that they are consistent with
a high level of safety and soundness and the protection of the deposit insurance fund.
Q.5. Are you concerned about the amount of U.S. debt the People’s
Republic of China holds?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

70
A.5. The United States is running a current account deficit, which
of necessity must be financed by net capital inflows from the rest
of the world. These inflows have allowed the United States to increase its capital stock at a rate faster than would have been possible had we relied solely on domestic savings, and the resulting
larger capital stock has increased the competitiveness of the U.S.
economy. Accordingly, the willingness of foreign investors, including China, to hold U.S. liabilities has conferred important benefits
on our economy.
Concerns have been raised that the quantities of U.S. Treasury
securities held by China and other foreign investors, both private
and official, have become so large as to increase the vulnerability
of the U.S. economy to changes in the portfolio allocations of those
investors. However, many of the reasons that investors hold these
securities—their unparalleled safety and liquidity, together with
the dollar’s traditional role as a reserve currency—are unlikely to
disappear any time soon. Moreover, markets for dollar-denominated financial assets are extraordinarily deep; for example, foreign
official holdings of U.S. Treasuries, of which holdings by China represent only a part, collectively account for only 3 percent of total
U.S. credit market debt outstanding. Accordingly, U.S. financial
markets would likely be able to absorb a significant shift in foreign
official demands for U.S. debt, including by China.
Q.6. In November 2002, you gave a speech on deflation. After the
speech, many in the pundit class started referring to you as ‘‘helicopter Ben.’’ Would you like to elaborate on your comments on deflation?
A.6. My November 2002 speech (‘‘Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’
Doesn’t Happen Here’’) was a discussion of the causes and effects
of deflation, as well as of some possible policy tools to address deflation. In that speech, I noted that one possible tool for combating
deflation, a money-financed tax cut, was essentially equivalent to
a theoretical construct used by Professor Milton Friedman, a ‘‘helicopter drop’’ of money. Of course, the ‘‘helicopter drop’’ metaphor is
purely a pedagogic device to help explain money’s role in the economy, not a practical policy tool. A key message of my speech was
that, contrary to some views that were being expressed at the time,
the central bank still has tools to address deflation even if the
short-term interest rate reaches zero. I believe the speech made
that point effectively and helped to relieve concerns about the potential effectiveness of monetary policy against deflation.
I would add that I believe that ‘‘stable prices’’ means avoiding
both deflation and inflation. My November 2002 speech stressed
the importance of avoiding deflation, at a time when inflation had
reached an historically low level. I am equally committed to avoiding inflation; as I noted in my testimony, I believe that keeping inflation low and stable is a critical contribution that monetary policy
can make to enhancing prosperity and growth.
Q.7. It is my understanding that the Federal Reserve has decided
to halt disclosure to the public of its M3 findings and report. The
findings of the M3 report provide pertinent information to the public—from economists to investors and to industries which all use
M3 report findings for economic forecasting, investing, and busi-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

71
ness decisions. You have advocated a ‘‘more open’’ Federal Reserve
under your command. Will you work to reverse this policy and commit to keeping the M3 report and its findings available and open
to the public? What is the rationale and reasoning by the Federal
Reserve to keep the M3’s information from the public?
A.7. My understanding is that the Federal Reserve decided to discontinue publication of the monetary aggregate M3 because the
costs of collecting and processing the underlying data were judged
to exceed the benefits. The Federal Reserve will not withhold the
M3 data from the public; rather, it will no longer collect and assemble that information. The Federal Reserve will continue to collect data for and publish the monetary aggregates M1 and M2 and
their components.
The benefits of continuing to publish M3 appear to be minimal,
because M3 has not been actively used in the formulation of U.S.
monetary policy and, at least within the Federal Reserve, has not
been found to have much value for economic forecasting. Discontinuing publication of M3 will allow the Federal Reserve to terminate certain reporting forms that currently must be filled out by
depository institutions, lowering the costs of such institutions.
Costs at the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board will similarly
be reduced as these particular reports will no longer need to be
processed and analyzed.
I view the periodic reappraisal of the costs and benefits of reports
as a useful discipline to ensure that the reporting burden on financial institutions is kept to a minimum.
Q.8. The Fed has been on the record with their fears of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac being systemic risks to our financial system.
Are you worried about other large financial institutions with portfolios similar to the GSE’s being systemic risks?
A.8. Market discipline is typically the governing mechanism that
constrains leverage and ensures that firms do not undertake excessive risks. The market system generally relies on the vigilance of
creditors and investors in financial transactions to assure themselves of their counterparties’ current condition and the soundness
of their risk management practices.
Because of the availability of deposit insurance, market discipline is not by itself sufficient to control risk-taking in the banking system; for this reason, the Federal Reserve and the other
banking agencies supervise and regulate banks. I believe that the
tools available to the banking agencies, including the ability to require adequate capital and an effective bank receivership process
are sufficient to allow the agencies to minimize the systemic risks
associated with large banks. Moreover, the agencies have made
clear that no bank is too-big-too-fail, so that bank management,
shareholders, and uninsured debtholders understand that they will
not escape the consequences of excessive risk-taking. In short, although vigilance is necessary, I believe the systemic risk inherent
in the banking system is well-managed and well-controlled.
In the case of the GSE’s, market discipline is problematic. Market participants recognize that the GSE’s are closely tied to the
Federal Government and such ties create a view among market
participants that the GSE’s are implicitly backed by the Federal

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4

72
Government, thereby weakening market discipline. Consequently,
strong regulatory authority and controls on GSE risk-taking are
needed to ensure that they do not create systemic risks. Unfortunately, the GSE regulator’s constrained capital authority, the ineffective receivership process, and other limitations weaken regulatory oversight of GSE’s. Capping the size of GSE portfolios, which
beyond a certain size do not contribute to the GSEs’ housing mission, is also important for controlling potential systemic risk.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

17:31 Sep 06, 2006

Jkt 025856

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 6602

Sfmt 6602

26610.TXT

SBANK4

PsN: SBANK4