U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–848 PDF 2018

MONETARY POLICY AND THE 

STATE OF THE ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 114–93 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 22, 2016 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 22, 2016 .................................................................................................... 55 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016 

Yellen, Hon. Janet L., Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System ................................................................................................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Yellen, Hon. Janet L. ....................................................................................... 56 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Yellen, Hon. Janet L.: 

Monetary Policy Report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, dated June 21, 1016 ....................................................................... 63 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Chairman 

Hensarling ..................................................................................................... 104 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Barr ........................................................................................................ 112 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Beatty ..................................................................................................... 113 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Hinojosa .................................................................................................. 118 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Luetkemeyer .......................................................................................... 125 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Messer .................................................................................................... 129 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Murphy ................................................................................................... 132 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Tipton ..................................................................................................... 134 

(1) 

MONETARY POLICY AND THE 

STATE OF THE ECONOMY 

Wednesday, June 22, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeb Hensarling [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Hensarling, Royce, Lucas, 

Garrett, Neugebauer, Pearce, Posey, Fitzpatrick, Westmoreland, 

Luetkemeyer, Huizenga, Duffy, Hurt, Stivers, Stutzman, 

Mulvaney, Hultgren, Ross, Pittenger, Wagner, Barr, Rothfus, 

Messer, Schweikert, Guinta, Tipton, Williams, Poliquin, Love, Hill, 

Emmer; Waters, Maloney, Velazquez, Sherman, Clay, Lynch, Scott, 

Cleaver, Moore, Ellison, Perlmutter, Himes, Carney, Sewell, Foster, 

Murphy, Delaney, Sinema, and Heck. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Financial Services Committee will 

come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 

a recess of the committee at any time. 

This hearing is for the purpose of receiving the semiannual testimony of the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System on the conduct of monetary policy and the state of the economy. 

I now recognize myself for 3 minutes to give an opening statement. 

I have been struck by some of the headlines I have reviewed recently. For example, ‘‘Economy barely grew in first 3 months of the 

year,’’ Associated Press. ‘‘U.S. added on 38,000 jobs in May, weakest performance since September 2010,’’ The Wall Street Journal. 

‘‘Will we ever get higher wages?’’, CNN. And, ‘‘Labor force shrinks,’’ 

Reuters. 

What is clear and verifiable is that this weak economy doesn’t 

work for millions of working Americans. The true unemployment 

rate stands at almost 10 percent. Paychecks are stagnant, and the 

national debt clock spins out of control. 

After almost 8 years of the President’s economic policies, he is on 

track to be the only President in U.S. history not to deliver a single 

year of at least 3 percent economic growth. This will give him the 

fourth-worst economy record of any President in U.S. history. 

The Fed cannot escape its share of responsibility in being 

complicit in ‘‘Obamanomics’’ because it has lost much of its independence from the Administration. To wit, every Member of the 

Board of Governors has been appointed by this President. 

2 

There is a noticeable revolving door between the White House, 

Treasury, and the Fed. The Fed Chair meets almost weekly with 

the Secretary of the Treasury to discuss policy. Furthermore, the 

Fed has been a facilitator and accommodator of the Administration’s disastrous national debt policy and has regrettably lent its 

shrinking credibility to advancing the Administration’s social agenda. 

There is a better way forward, which includes renormalizing 

monetary policy and reforming key aspects of the Federal Reserve 

to better comport with its mandate—as my House Republicans 

passed the FORM Act last year and are introducing the Financial 

CHOICE Act this year, which offers economic growth for all and 

bank bailouts for none. 

The Fed’s so-called ‘‘data-dependent’’ monetary policy strategy 

says nothing about which data matter, let alone how they matter. 

This severely compromises the kind of policy transparency and predictability that is necessary for households and businesses to grow 

our economy. 

The Fed’s so-called ‘‘forward guidance’’ continues to provide little 

or no guidance to the rest of us. The FORM Act, which has been 

endorsed by nationally renowned economists, including three Nobel 

laureates, would help reestablish the Fed’s independence and promote economic growth by ensuring a systemic monetary policy 

framework that is truly data-dependent, consistent, and predictable. 

Another drag on our economy is the blurring of fiscal and monetary policy by the Fed. By paying interest on excess reserves at 

above-market rates, the Fed has swollen its balance sheet by which 

it now directs credit to favored markets. 

Stanford economics professor John Taylor rightfully calls this, 

‘‘mondustrial policy,’’ for the combination of monetary and industrial policy it represents. By inviting distributional interests to 

crowd out the market discipline of credit, this policy favors a few 

at the expense of many and weakens economic growth for working 

Americans. 

Left unabated, the central bank will soon become our central 

planner. This cannot be allowed to happen. It is way past time for 

the Fed to commit to a credible, verifiable monetary policy rule, 

systematically shrink its balance sheet, and get out of the business 

of picking winners and losers in credit markets. 

I now yield 3 minutes to the ranking member for an opening 

statement. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank Chair Yellen for joining us today. Under your leadership, we have seen a Federal Reserve that cares about American 

workers and families and has made tremendous progress on their 

behalf. 

While the Fed’s work may seem abstract to many people, in fact 

it does have a profound impact on our day-to-day lives, from determining the rates we pay on loans to ensuring that Wall Street 

never again puts taxpayers at risk. 

Thanks to actions taken by the Fed, the Obama Administration, 

and Democrats in Congress, we have come a long way since the financial crisis wiped out trillions of dollars in household wealth. We 

3 

can see this in the longest-ever streak of private sector job growth, 

rising home prices and overall gains in household wealth. 

Yet, I remain concerned that despite these gains, our recovery remains incomplete, and our progress has been uneven, particularly 

as it affects our middle-class workers, low-income families, and minority communities. 

When you look at wages, broader measures of unemployment and 

the most recent jobs numbers, it is clear that too many Americans 

have been left behind. That is why I am pleased that you have 

taken a cautious approach to raising rates and have dedicated significant personal energy to increasing economic inclusion. It shows 

that you are indeed listening to the needs of everyone, not just the 

well-connected. And I would encourage you to continue down this 

path. 

Of course, Congress must take responsibility for these disparities 

as well. Too many years of fiscal austerity have robbed our economy of its full potential. And now we are seeing the culmination 

of Republican efforts to kill the Dodd-Frank Act, putting our economy back at risk of another crisis. In addition to the chairman’s 

wrong Choice Act, Republicans have filed over 30 amendments to 

the financial services appropriations bill that would undermine financial reform. 

So before closing, I would like to highlight tomorrow’s vote in 

Britain, which serves as the latest reminder of why we must preserve the Fed’s independence and ability to set monetary policy on 

a forward-looking basis. No rule or formula could adequately account for such unpredictability, which is why foolish proposals that 

seek to put monetary policy on autopilot must be rejected. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Huizenga, chairman of our Monetary Policy 

and Trade Subcommittee, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am back here, Chair Yellen. 

So in response to the financial crisis, the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act accelerated its authority that had been granted to 

start paying interest on reserves from 2011 back to October 1, 

2008. And according to the New York District Bank, the Fed expected to set interest on reserves well-below the Fed’s target policy 

rate, that is the Federal funds rate. Had the Fed created such a 

‘‘rate floor’’ it would have complied with the letter of the law. 

Section 201 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 

2006 explicitly states that interest on reserves ‘‘cannot exceed the 

general level of short-term interest rates.’’ However, as we learned 

in last month’s Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee hearing, 

interest on reserves is above the Fed funds rate. 

This above-market rate not only appears to have gone outside 

the bounds of the authorizing statute, it may also be discouraging 

a more free flow of credit in an economy that can and should be 

flourishing. Speeding up the authority to pay interest on reserves 

equipped the Fed to expand its balance sheet to previously unimaginable heights. Due to various rounds of unconventional monetary policy, such as quantitative easing, the Fed’s balance sheet 

4 

has grown exponentially, and today it stands at a staggering $4.5 

trillion, with a ‘‘T,’’ which is about 25 percent of the United States’ 

GDP. 

At the same time, the average maturity of Treasury securities 

held by the Fed increased from about 5 years to over 10 years, 

which considerably increases the balance sheet’s exposure to interest rate duration risk. It all leads me to wonder if the Fed has not 

become the ultimate global systemically important bank, or G-SIB. 

Almost 7 years old, the Fed’s colossal and distortionary balance 

sheet shows no signs of shrinking anytime soon. To be sure, the 

Fed appears to have only started thinking about an exit, as described in its late 2014 policy normalization principles and plans, 

but the word ‘‘principles’’ is nowhere really to be found in this described plan. 

Moreover, the ‘‘plan’’ simply mimics the same opaque data-dependent strategy that has been talked about for monetary policy 

that has left market participants scratching their heads for years, 

unsure of what exact data will inform the Fed’s decision-making 

and how the FOMC will react to that data. Unfortunately, monetary policy has clearly stepped outside this bound and shows little, 

if any, sign of returning and it threatens the durability of the monetary policy independence itself, in my opinion. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady 

from Wisconsin, Ms. Moore, the ranking member of our Monetary 

Policy and Trade Subcommittee, for 2 minutes. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome back, Chair Yellen. 

I know it must be very frustrating to you every time you come 

here, there is some cloud over our economy and people want to 

point fingers directly at you. But I want you to know that I have 

recognized that in the time immediately following the financial crisis, I think the Obama Administration and Congress reacted very 

forcefully with smart reforms and stimulus to make sure that the 

U.S. economy, and with the help of the Fed, that we became the 

envy of the world, compared to Europe and China and Russia. 

And in the United States, I would like to see a lot more of this 

recovery touch the working class and poor Americans. But that failure, Madam Chairwoman, is Congress’ failure, not your failure. 

The last time you were here, we asked you about the Chinese 

economy. And of course, we are all here sitting on the edge of our 

seats to hear what you might have to say about the so-called 

Brexit. 

And I worry that in our worrying and becoming more anxious, 

that we are just going to worry ourselves into doing more counterproductive things, counterproductive policies, like austerity and 

like the Brexit. 

We have some extreme policies that are floating out here in our 

body politic, orderly default on U.S. debt, negotiated default, and 

I think we just have to stop derailing ourselves with nonsense. I 

think we have a bright future and I know that we can get through 

this deep frustration with people like you at the helm of the Fed. 

And so, thank you so much for joining us today. 

5 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentlelady yields back. 

Today, we welcome the testimony of the Honorable Janet Yellen. 

Chair Yellen has previously testified before this committee on a 

number of occasions, so I believe she needs no further introduction. 

Without objection, Chair Yellen, your written statement will be 

made a part of the record, and you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANET L. YELLEN, CHAIR, 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Mrs. YELLEN. Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters, 

and other members of the committee, I am pleased to present the 

Federal Reserve’s monetary policy report to the Congress. In my remarks today, I will briefly discuss the current economic situation 

and outlook before turning to monetary policy. 

Since my last appearance before this committee in February, the 

economy has made further progress toward the Federal Reserve’s 

objective of maximum employment. And while inflation has continued to run below our 2 percent objective, the FOMC expects inflation to rise to that level over the medium term. However, the pace 

of improvement in the labor market appears to have slowed more 

recently, suggesting that our cautious approach to adjusting monetary policy remains appropriate. 

In the labor market, the cumulative increase in jobs since its 

trough in early 2010 has now topped 14 million, while the unemployment rate has fallen more than 5 percentage points from its 

peak. In addition, as we detail in the monetary policy report, jobless rates have declined for all major demographic groups, including for African Americans and Hispanics. 

Despite these declines, however, it is troubling that unemployment rates for these minority groups remain higher than for the 

Nation overall and that the annual income of the median AfricanAmerican household is still well below the median income of other 

U.S. households. 

During the first quarter of this year, job gains averaged 200,000 

per month, just a bit slower than last year’s pace. While the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent over this period, the labor 

force participation rate moved up noticeably. In April and May, 

however, the average pace of job gains slowed to only 80,000 per 

month or about 100,000 per month after adjustment for the effects 

of a strike. 

The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent in May, but that decline mainly occurred because fewer people reported they were actively seeking work. A broader measure of labor market slack that 

includes workers marginally attached to the workforce and those 

working part time who would prefer full-time work was unchanged 

in May and remains above its level prior to the recession. 

Of course, it is important not to overreact to one or two reports, 

and several other timely indicators of labor market conditions still 

look favorable. One notable development is that there is some tentative signs that wage growth may finally be picking up. That said, 

we will be watching the job market carefully to see whether the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:36 Feb 09, 2018 Jkt 025848 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\25848.TXT TERI
6 

cent slowing in employment growth is transitory, as we believe it 

is. 

Economic growth has been uneven over recent quarters. U.S. inflation-adjusted GDP is currently estimated to have increased at an 

annual rate of only 3/4 percent in the first quarter of this year. 

Subdued foreign growth and the appreciation of the dollar weighed 

on exports, while the energy sector was hard hit by the steep drop 

in oil prices since mid-2014. In addition, business investment outside of the energy sector was surprisingly weak. 

However, the available indicators point to a noticeable step-up in 

GDP growth in this second quarter. In particular, consumer spending has picked up smartly in recent months, supported by solid 

growth in real disposable income and the ongoing effects of the increases in household wealth. 

And housing has continued to recover gradually, aided by income 

gains in the very low level of mortgage rates. The recent pickup in 

household spending together with underlying conditions that are 

favorable for growth lead me to be optimistic that we will see further improvements in the labor market and the economy more 

broadly over the next few years. 

Monetary policy remains accommodative. Low oil prices and ongoing job gains should continue to support the growth of incomes 

and, therefore, consumer spending. Fiscal policy is now a small 

positive for growth. And global economic growth should pick up 

over time, supported by accommodative monetary policies abroad. 

As a result, the FOMC expects with gradual increases in the Federal funds rate, economic activity will continue to expand at a moderate pace and labor market indicators will strengthen further. 

Turning to inflation, overall, consumer prices as measured by the 

price index for personal consumption expenditures increased just 1 

percent over the 12 months ending in April, up noticeably from its 

pace through much of last year, but still well-short of the committee’s 2 percent objective. Much of this shortfall continues to reflect 

earlier declines in energy prices and lower prices for imports. 

Core inflation, which excludes energy and food prices, has been 

running close to 11⁄2 percent. As the transitory influences holding 

down inflation fade and the labor market strengthens further, the 

committee expects inflation to rise to 2 percent over the medium 

term. Nonetheless, in considering future policy decisions, we will 

continue to carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward 

our inflation goal. 

Of course, considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook 

remains. The latest readings on the labor market and the weak 

pace of investment illustrate one downside risk, that domestic demand might falter. 

In addition, although I am optimistic about the longer-run prospects for the U.S. economy, we cannot rule out the possibility expressed by some prominent economists that the slow productivity 

growth seen in recent years will continue into the future. 

Vulnerabilities in the global economy also remain. Although concerns about slowing growth in China and falling commodity prices 

appear to have eased from earlier this year, China continues to 

face considerable challenges as it rebalances its economy toward 

7 

domestic demand and consumption and away from export-led 

growth. 

More generally, in the current environment of sluggish growth, 

low inflation, and already very accommodative monetary policy in 

many advanced economies, investor perceptions of and appetite for 

risk can change abruptly. One development that could shift investor sentiment is the upcoming referendum in the United Kingdom. 

The U.K. vote to exit the European Union could have significant 

economic repercussions. 

For all of these reasons, the committee is closely monitoring global economic financial developments and their implications for domestic activity, labor markets, and inflation. 

I will turn next to monetary policy. The FOMC seeks to promote 

maximum employment and price stability as mandated by the Congress. Given the economic situation I just described, monetary policy has remained accommodative over the first half of this year to 

support further improvement in the labor market and a return of 

inflation to our 2 percent objective. 

Specifically, the FOMC has maintained the target range for the 

Federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent, and this kept the Federal 

Reserve’s holdings of longer-term securities at an elevated level. 

The committee’s actions reflect a careful assessment of the appropriate setting for monetary policy, taking into account continuing 

below-target inflation and the mixed readings on the labor market 

and the economic growth seen this year. Proceeding cautiously in 

raising the Federal funds rate will allow us to keep the monetary 

support to economic growth in place while we assess whether 

growth is returning to a moderate pace, and whether the labor 

market will strengthen further, and whether inflation will continue 

to make progress toward our 2 percent objective. 

Another factor that supports taking a cautious approach in raising Federal funds rate is that the Federal funds rate is still near 

its effective lower bound. If inflation were to remain persistently 

low or if the labor market were to weaken, the committee would 

have only limited room to reduce the target range for the Federal 

funds rate. However, if the economy were to overheat and inflation 

seemed likely to move significantly or persistently above 2 percent, 

the FOMC could readily increase the target range for the Federal 

funds rate. 

The FOMC continues to anticipate that economic conditions will 

improve further and that the economy will evolve in a manner that 

will warrant only gradual increases in the Federal funds rate. 

In addition, the committee expects that the Federal funds rate is 

likely to remain for some time below the levels that are expected 

to prevail in the longer run because headwinds, which include restraint on U.S. economy activity from economic and financial developments abroad, subdued household formation and meager productivity growth, mean that the interest rate needed to keep the economy operating near its potential is low by historical standards. If 

these headwinds slowly fade over time as the committee expects, 

then gradual increases in the Federal funds rate are likely to be 

need. 

In line with that view, most FOMC participants, based on their 

projections prepared for the June meeting, anticipate that values 

8 

for the Federal funds rate of less than 1 percent at the end of this 

year and less than 2 percent at the end of next year, will be consistent with their assessment of appropriate monetary policy. Of 

course, the economic outlook is uncertain, so monetary policy is by 

no means on a preset course, and FOMC participants’ projections 

for the Federal funds rate are not a predetermined plan for future 

policy. 

The actual path of the Federal funds rate will depend on economic and financial developments, and their implications for the 

outlook and associated risks. Stronger growth or a more rapid increase in inflation than the committee currently anticipates would 

likely make it appropriate to raise the Federal funds rate more 

quickly. Conversely, if the economy were to disappoint, a lower 

path of the Federal funds rate would be appropriate. 

We are committed to our dual objectives and we will adjust policy as appropriate to foster financial conditions consistent with 

their attainment over time. The committee is continuing its policy 

of reinvesting proceeds from maturing Treasury securities, and 

principal payments from agency debt, and mortgage-backed securities. As highlighted in the statement released after the June 

FOMC meeting, we anticipate continuing this policy until normalization of the level of the funds rate is well underway. 

Maintaining our sizable holdings of longer-term securities should 

help maintain accommodative financial conditions and should reduce the risk that we might have to lower the Federal funds rate 

to the effective lower bound in the event of a future large, adverse 

shock. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chair Yellen can be found on page 

56 of the appendix.] 

Chairman HENSARLING. Thank you. 

The Chair now yields himself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Chair Yellen, I wish to spend a little time exploring interest on 

reserves. In 2006, you were the President of the San Francisco Fed. 

Is that correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Yes, and I was a junior member of this 

committee, and I carried the Financial Services Regulatory Relief 

Act in the House, which did not contain IOR. 

I have since gone back to review the legislative history, and all 

the legislative history I can find is that the Fed wanted IOR in 

order to have, number one, member bank retention—they were concerned about that—and number two, to establish a rate floor for 

the Fed’s fund rate. So I don’t know if you would have had an occasion to review the legislative history yourself, or do you have any 

memory of why the Fed asked for IOR in 2006? Have you reviewed 

the legislative history? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I have some recollection of it, although perhaps not 

perfect. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Did any Fed official at that time, to the 

best of your knowledge, say that IOR would supplant open market 

operations as the main tool of monetary policy? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t recall exactly what was said, but we were 

faced with the problem. I remember former Vice Chair Donald 

9 

Kohn testified on this, and I believe there were a number of testimonies over many years. 

Chairman HENSARLING. I agree. I just wanted to know if you had 

a memory of them. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think that the Fed felt that there were difficulties 

in managing short-term interest rates using our standard— 

Chairman HENSARLING. Yes, but do you have any memory of the 

Fed saying anything else besides a rate floor? Because if you don’t, 

my point is this: I believe Congress granted IOR for one purpose, 

and it appears that the Fed is using it for another purpose. 

My 12-year-old son could ask me for a Louisville slugger to improve his batting practice, but that doesn’t mean I approve it for 

the use of chasing his sister around the house. I am not sure that 

anybody in Congress foresaw the tool being used in such a way. 

And as I think you know, Section 201 of the Financial Services 

Regulatory Relief Act says that payments on reserves, ‘‘cannot exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.’’ Today, you are 

paying 50 basis points on interest on excess reserves. The Fed 

funds rate yesterday, I believe, was 38 basis points. Is that correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. That’s probably correct. 

Chairman HENSARLING. So, you are paying about, back-of-the-envelope calculation, a 35 percent premium on excess reserves. You 

are paying a premium to some of the largest banks in America, is 

that correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I consider a 12 basis point difference to be really 

quite small and in line with the general level of interest rates. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Okay. So, you believe you have the legal 

authority to do this, otherwise you wouldn’t do it, is that correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I do believe we have the legal authority to do it. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Madam Chair, would it be legal for you 

to pay a 50 percent premium? You are paying a 35 percent premium today. Would it be legal to pay a 100 percent premium? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe it is a small difference. And interest on 

excess reserves did not succeed as expected in setting a firm floor— 

Chairman HENSARLING. And would it be legal— 

Mrs. YELLEN. —on the level short-term interest rates. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Would it be legal under the statute for 

you to pay twice the Fed’s fund rate as a premium on interest on 

reserves? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe that the way we are setting it is legal and 

consistent with the Act. 

Chairman HENSARLING. No, that is not my question. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes, it is. It is— 

Chairman HENSARLING. What is the legal limit? What is the 

legal limit on which you can pay? What does the phrase ‘‘exceed 

the general level of short-term interest’’ mean? You are saying that 

12 basis points does not trigger the statute. At what point is the 

statute triggered? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It depends on exactly what short-term interest rate 

you are looking at. There are a whole variety of different rates 

and— 

Chairman HENSARLING. Okay. Do you have an opinion on whether or not it would be legal to pay a 100 percent premium? 

10 

Mrs. YELLEN. Whatever level we set, the interest on reserves 

at— 

Chairman HENSARLING. Madam Chair, please, it is a simple 

question. 

Mrs. YELLEN. —funds going to trade below that level. 

Chairman HENSARLING. Madam Chair, please, it is a simple 

question. Would it be legal under the statute to pay a 100 percent 

premium? If you don’t know the answer to the question, you don’t 

know the answer to the question. 

Mrs. YELLEN. My interpretation is that it is legal. 

Chairman HENSARLING. It would be legal to pay twice the market rate? That would not exceed the general level of short-term interest? 

Mrs. YELLEN. There is likely to be for quite some time a small 

number of basis points gap between interest on reserves and the 

Fed funds rate, and that is something that— 

Chairman HENSARLING. I would simply advise discussing that 

with the legal counsel, because I think that frankly offends common sense. 

Last question: You mentioned as part of your policy of paying interest on reserves, part of the rationale is that you have sent 

roughly $600 billion back to Congress, to the taxpayer, to Treasury. 

It is only possible because of a larger stock of reserves. 

Are you aware that the GAO has opined, ‘‘While a reserve bank 

transfer to Treasury is recorded as a receipt to the government, 

such transfers do not produce new resources for the Federal Government?’’ 

And are you aware that the Congressional Budget Office has 

opined that, ‘‘transferring excess earnings from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury has no import for the fiscal status of the Federal Government?’’ Are you aware of either of those opinions of the 

GAO or the CBO? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am, but I believe those opinions were rendered 

in connection with a highway bill which tapped Federal Reserve 

surplus in order to pay for the highway bill and what the opinion 

meant was that Congress was not generating additional revenues 

in transferring Federal Reserve’s surplus to the Congress, that this 

was essentially an accounting— 

Chairman HENSARLING. My time has expired, and I think the 

language is plain. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Last month’s jobs report included an unusually steep decline in 

labor force participation, with 664,000 workers reporting that they 

had stopped looking for work altogether. You said recently that it 

is too soon to tell whether this drop was an aberration or the sign 

of a larger trend and cautioned in your testimony in the Senate not 

to place too much emphasis on a single jobs report. 

That said, the drop was quite substantial. So, I would like to better understand your current thinking on what could have caused 

such a deep decline in labor force participation. Moreover, how are 

you reconciling the consistently positive job gains over the past 75 

months with the steep labor force decline? And to what extent has 

11 

the decline in labor force participation affected your thinking regarding the timing and pace of further rate increases? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Taking a slightly longer time perspective than just 

the last 2 months, labor force participation has been declining and 

is likely to continue declining in the coming years because we have 

an aging population. And as people move into the retirement years 

and their fractions in our population are increasing, they work less, 

even though more recent cohorts participate more. But there is a 

sharp drop-off in participation in the labor force, so that will continue. 

But we have also felt, or at least I have felt, that labor force participation among other groups has been somewhat depressed by the 

fact that we have had a weak labor market. And a sign of a 

strengthening labor market is to see people who were discouraged 

brought back into the labor force. Now, over the last year, the labor 

force participation rate has been essentially flat. It had increased 

for a bit, it has come down somewhat, over the last year it has 

been flat. 

Now, with the declining trend due to an aging population, I take 

the flatness in the labor force participation rate over the last year 

as an indication that in fact we have seen some cyclical gains, that 

people who were discouraged have come back into the labor force. 

If we just look at the last labor market report, the last month, I 

would caution these numbers are quite volatile and I don’t think 

we should attach too much significance to a single month. 

But as I indicated in my prepared remarks, when we have a 

month in which job gains are very low and we see a decline in 

labor force participation, that reflects an increase in the number of 

people who had actively been looking for work and in the previous 

month had been categorized as unemployed, ceased looking hard 

enough so they now move into the category of out of the labor force 

because instead of actively searching they are no longer actively 

searching. That is not a good sign. So, we are watching that very 

closely. 

But I think we shouldn’t over-blow the significance of a single report. I continue to believe this is likely to be a transitory phenomenon. The economy slowed toward the end of last year and in 

the first quarter of this year. When GDP growth slowed, the labor 

market, nevertheless, continued to perform well with 200,000 jobs 

per month in the first quarter. 

Now, this more recent decline in job growth may be a reflection 

of that earlier weakness in spending. And as I pointed out, we are 

seeing, I believe, a pickup in growth. There has been a sharp increase in consumer spending. I think if that turns out to be the 

case, and I see the fundamentals as remaining essentially strong 

there, I am very hopeful that we will see a pickup in job growth, 

and we will be watching for that as we assess the economy. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Let me just say, you noted in your testimony that a U.K. vote 

to exit the European Union would have significant economic repercussions for economic activity, labor markets and inflation here in 

the United States, and have previously indicated that the uncertainty posed by the referendum was a factor in the Fed’s most recent decision to hold off on raising rates. 

12 

My Republican colleagues have called for tying monetary policy 

decisions to a strict mathematical formula. And I wanted to just 

get your take on whether there is any such preset formula that you 

are aware of that takes into account the uncertainty associated 

with the chance that a member country could drop out of the European Union. 

Can you quickly comment on that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Mechanical rules take none of that into account. 

They base changes in the stance of policy on just two variables: the 

rate of inflation and GDP or the unemployment rate. And I do 

think, especially given how low interest rates are and how long it 

has taken the U.S. economy to recover, that it is important to look 

at the risks and to bring in risk management considerations, as we 

are doing. 

I don’t know that a Brexit vote would have significant consequences for us, but it could. And I think it is important to take 

that into account. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Huizenga, chairman of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a lot to cover, but really quickly, I do want to clarify the 

quote that the chairman had read from the GAO: ‘‘Such transfers 

do not produce new resources for the Federal Government as a 

whole.’’ That had nothing to do with the Highway Trust Fund. 

That was a quote from the GAO in 2002 on page 16 of their report. 

So I wanted to clarify that. 

I was hoping to cover two other issues:one, the Fed balance sheet 

and risk situation, and whether the Fed has basically become a GSIB; and two, the independence of monetary policy versus the regulatory accountability. Senator Dodd, when this was originally going 

through— I wasn’t here—was talking about breaking those out. 

But on page six of your testimony here, ‘‘Maintaining our sizable 

holdings of longer-term securities should help maintain accommodative financial conditions and should reduce the risk that we 

might have to lower the Federal funds rate to the effective lower 

bound in the event of future large adverse shock.’’ 

I know yesterday in the Senate, you said that you do have the 

ability to go to negative rates. I am assuming that is what you 

were talking about in your sentence. 

Mrs. YELLEN. No, I said that we are not looking— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I know that. But in your written testimony, I am 

just trying to say, is that what you are referring to? I don’t know 

where else we go other than into negative interest rates. And I am 

curious by what authority do you have to go negative? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am not thinking, and I was not referring to the 

possibility of going to negative interest rates. What I meant was 

that the higher the level of the Federal funds rate we are able to 

achieve, as tightening becomes appropriate to this economy, the 

more ability we will have to respond to some future negative shock 

by cutting the Fed funds rate. 

13 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I am glad you could clarify that. I want to move 

on. 

A former Federal Reserve officer has highlighted the Fed’s exposure to the very type of carry trade, borrow short, lend long that 

had increased financial fragility before the financial panic of 2008. 

You have previously expressed your support for stress testing 

banks using extreme worst-case scenarios. You just, in reference to 

the ranking member’s question about Brexit, talked about risk 

management that the Fed is having to go through. 

Given your belief in the value of stress testing, would you agree 

that it would also be appropriate to stress test the Fed’s balance 

sheet with a $4.5 trillion portfolio, to make sure that the risk to 

the Fed, the Treasury, and the economy as a whole, if the Fed decides in the future that it is best to shrink its balance sheet faster 

than it is currently expected? Should you stress test? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is very important to understand that the Fed is 

not like a commercial bank. Our balance sheet is very different and 

our liabilities are not runable. So capital plays a very different role 

for a central bank. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. You have a huge effect. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I do not think stress testing our balance sheet is 

something that is necessary. But nevertheless, we have done so 

and we have reported publicly the outcome of such stress tests. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So, if you didn’t think you needed to, why did 

you? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Because there is public interest in what would 

happen under such a scenario. And it is an exercise worth undertaking to understand. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Do you believe that the Fed is exposed with this 

$4.5 trillion balance sheet to considerable interest rate duration 

risk leading to loss of income as you unwind? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Our income is very, very much higher, about 5 

times higher now because of that large balance sheet, then around 

$100 billion a year— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So, when you start unwinding, you will lose 

money. Correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is very unlikely that the Fed would end up with 

negative income. It is conceivable. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Not everybody believes that. There are a lot of 

people who believe that it is inevitable that the Fed is going to end 

up with negative income because of the amount of unwinding that 

needs to be done. 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is certainly not inevitable. But there is a scenario in which the U.S. economy grows very strongly, and in order 

to avoid overheating, the Fed needs to raise short-term interest 

rates at a much steeper pace than we consider likely to be appropriate. And in that scenario, it is conceivable that we would end 

up paying more for reserves than we earn on our assets. It is very 

unlikely. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I think many people believe that is inevitable. 

Mrs. YELLEN. And let me say this would be a very nice situation 

for the United States to find itself in because this would be a scenario with strong growth and large tax— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Chair, my time has expired. 

14 

Mrs. YELLEN. —proceeds coming into the U.S. Treasury. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Ultimately, my question is, is the Fed solvent? 

And I am not sure that has solidly been answered. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. 

Moore, ranking member of our Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I have some 

questions for you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to get to a couple 

of questions about the living wills and the orderly liquidation. 

As you know, the chairman of this committee and our speaker 

have called for an end to it. So, I definitely want you to explain 

how the orderly liquidation authority would work, confirm for us 

that it would be paid for with an assessment on remaining firms 

and not on taxpayers. 

There seems to be some sort of notion that this would be a revenue raiser for us if we were to end it. But inside of that answer, 

I also want you to talk about the firms that had failed. And of 

course, Wells Fargo, who had passed the last time, failed this time. 

So, can you just review for us that once a bank passes the stress 

tests and the living wills test, do they need to keep updating their 

wills? How will they stay fruitful? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Dodd-Frank contends for the largest banking organizations to structure themselves and to have in place processes 

that would enable them to be resolved if they were to fail under 

the bankruptcy code with Title II or the orderly liquidation authority that would be used by the FDIC being a backstop that would 

be available if it were impossible to resolve these firms under the 

bankruptcy code. 

So, we are insisting that firms put in place structural changes, 

governance mechanisms, make sure that they have adequate capital, gone concern, loss absorbency, liquidity in the right places, everything that we think would maximize the odds of success in resolving such a firm under the bankruptcy code, and the living wills 

that have evolved over time as the banks understand better what 

is needed, and we do as well, set out their expectations for how 

they could be resolved under the bankruptcy code. In the event 

they encountered trouble, these are very helpful documents to have 

available. 

Now, you mentioned that Wells Fargo, the FDIC, and the Fed 

did not find their initial living will a year ago to be non-credible. 

We did, nevertheless, identify a set of shortcomings that we wanted 

to see remedied and in the last submission that we evaluated and 

we have put all this information out publicly in the letters to the 

firms. 

Ms. MOORE. My time is running short, so I just really do want 

to get to the point. There is a call for ending it. What would be the 

consequences of that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. For ending orderly liquidation? 

Ms. MOORE. Yes. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe that is a very important backup authority 

for the FDIC to have. 

Ms. MOORE. What will happen if we don’t have it? 

15 

Mrs. YELLEN. If you don’t have it and a firm were to fail, and 

we don’t know what the circumstances would be, they might be 

such that it were difficult to resolve under the bankruptcy code. 

Ms. MOORE. Would that be a bailout for the taxpayers if we— 

Mrs. YELLEN. If the orderly liquidation provided— 

Ms. MOORE. If we didn’t have that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. The taxpayers would be in a difficult situation. 

Ms. MOORE. That is what I would like to know. 

On the regulatory capital, there are pros and cons to just simple 

leverage, but there is also risk weighting like Basel. Could you provide your thoughts on what the right amount of banking capital 

would be if we went to simple leverages without other prudential 

protections? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think it would be a very bad idea to only have 

a leverage ratio that would encourage banking organizations to 

take on risks by loading up their balance sheets with riskier assets. 

That happened prior to the financial crisis. It is why we went to 

risk weighting. So, I think it is useful to have such a ratio as a 

backup measure, but not sufficient. And I also think for systemic 

firms that stress testing, which is a different and forward-looking 

capital exercise, is also necessary. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, chairman of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, you and I have had several discussions about the 

need for U.S. bank regulators to do a kind of comprehensive study 

of post-crisis regulation, similar to what the EU is currently doing. 

I really continue to be disappointed that we are in a mode right 

now where we implement first and study later. And to continue 

that discussion, I wanted to have a little bit of a dialogue with you. 

Now, is it correct that the total loss absorbing capacity or the 

TLAC rule was designated to strengthen the ability of the largest 

domestic banks to resolve without government support? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes. That is true. It is to provide gone concern loss 

absorbency that could be used in a Title II resolution, or alternatively, most of the large banking organizations indicated in their 

living wills— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So, it is designed to reduce the systemic footprint of the U.S. G-SIBs right? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is designed to aid an orderly resolution. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And is it correct of the Federal Reserve proposal to impose single counterparty limits on U.S. banks is a rule 

that would reduce the systemic footprint of U.S. G-SIBs? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is designed to do that, yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So, in the G-SIBs surcharge rule then, the 

Federal Reserve states that it is designed to reduce G-SIBs, now 

I am going to quote, says it is designed to reduce ‘‘GSIBs probability to default, such as G-SIBs suspected systemic impact and 

approximately equal to that of a large non-systemic holding company.’’ So does the G-SIBs’ surcharge methodology and calibration 

16 

structure take into account these other steps that you have taken 

to reduce systemic risk? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think it does. The idea here is that a G-SIBs failure would have systemic repercussions and result in cost to the 

economy, even if it could be resolved. And therefore, it is appropriate and Dodd-Frank was very clear on this, it is appropriate for 

those firms to be more resilient and less likely to fail. And by insisting that they hold more capital, that is a way of making them 

more resilient. And the capital surcharges take account of not only 

their size, but measures of interconnectedness with other parts of 

the financial system. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. It just appears to me, Chair Yellen, that we 

are pancaking here. We say, well, this is designed to reduce systemic risk, and then we say, well, but this is designed to reduce 

systemic risk, well, maybe we didn’t go far enough and this is designed to, and we are really not looking back. Or maybe you have. 

Have you done an analysis of what the impact of some of these 

other ones that we discussed earlier are going to have and what? 

Before you said, let us look at a surcharge on top of that, did you 

do an analysis of the impact and basically a cost/benefit analysis? 

Because I think what I look at is it is kind of like going through 

a buffet. I think the Fed is going through a buffet. I don’t know 

about you, but when I go through a buffet I have a big problem. 

I take a little of this, oh, that looks good, I will take a little of that, 

then I take a little of this. And when I get to the end of the checkout, I have more food than I probably should eat. 

I am concerned here, and I think that is what the EU is saying 

right now is, before we layer more and more regulations and prohibitions on the financial sector, maybe we ought to look and see 

what the impact is on it. Are you all having those conversations? 

Mrs. YELLEN. At various points, we have looked pretty carefully 

at what the impact is of these rules on the costs and benefits to 

society as a whole. And the overwhelming conclusion that comes 

from those studies is that a financial crisis is immensely costly, 

takes an immensely costly toll on American households, workers, 

and businesses— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So is the goal here to make these institutions 

fail-proof or just to make sure that the American taxpayers don’t 

have to bail them out in the event that they do fail? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think we are trying to reduce the odds that they 

get into trouble and take a toll on the U.S. economy. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. The question is, are you trying? 

I think the Fed is trying to make these entities fail-proof. And 

I think it is kind of spilling over the entire financial community. 

So basically, I think what we have now is we have trying to run 

banks. I am not sure that when we look at the anemic growth, you 

are trying to paint a rosy picture, but the economic data out there 

is not all that rosy. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I guess I would respond by saying that credit has 

been growing at a healthy rate. 

If you look at surveys, for example, the National Federation of 

Independent Business, small and medium-sized businesses are not 

reporting that lack of access to credit is among their most significant problems. We have had great improvement in the U.S. econVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:36 Feb 09, 2018 Jkt 025848 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\25848.TXT TERI
17 

omy. And most banks, even though it is a challenging, low-interestrate environment, remain profitable and we have a safer financial 

system. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Texas 

has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Himes. 

Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Chair Yellen. 

I want to make a quick statement. As you hear the scrutiny and 

criticism of the other side, I want to say that a lot of us subscribe 

to a point of view held by much of the economic profession, which 

is that this place, the Congress, abdicated its economic role in 2010 

in favor of austerity, giving up an opportunity to do a massive investment in infrastructure and any number of other things that I 

think would have actually helped the economy in favor of austerity, 

which while it reduced the deficit fairly dramatically, has been a 

drag on our economic growth, leading the Federal Reserve to stand 

on its own with monetary policy, not an ideal situation. 

But many of us appreciate the position that the Fed was put 

into, and many of us will go to the mat to defend the Fed against 

the many ideas that would damage the monetary policy independence of the Fed. 

My question really pertains to something that you just closed on. 

There is a narrative developing that while credit markets as a 

whole are robust and the facts show that, whether it is the highyield market or the IPO market, you name it, credit markets are 

strong for corporate America, but that is not true for small and medium-sized enterprises. The narrative, as it has developed, is that 

is true, and that is a question to you. You seem to believe that it 

is not. 

Number two, the second part of the narrative is that the reason 

for that is bank regulation. I will just quote from one Wall Street 

research report that says, ‘‘New banking regulations have made 

bank credit more expensive and less available. This affects small 

firms disproportionately.’’ So, my question is, are we in fact seeing 

a supply problem in terms of credit to smaller businesses, and is 

there any evidence that this is attributable to new bank regulations? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Small businesses often find it more difficult to get 

access to credit. 

We know that frequently small businesses or startup businesses, 

the owners will use their credit cards and personal credit worthiness in order to take out loans. They may have less access to capital than established businesses, but I don’t— 

Mr. HIMES. Pardon me, that has always been true. But has that 

changed? 

Mrs. YELLEN. That has always been true. I wouldn’t say I have 

seen any data suggesting there is a significant change. I know the 

decline we had in house prices made it more difficult for a while 

for small businesses, for example, to use a home equity loan to finance a business. 

But that is not a small-business loan. I think every indication I 

have seen suggests that the supply of credit remains healthy to 

18 

small businesses, that it doesn’t rank among the top of their concerns, that the demand, we meet with many banking organizations 

to discuss this issue, and they say the demand for credit by small 

businesses and medium-sized businesses remains somewhat depressed. 

But I think the supply and availability of credit are there. We 

have not seen negative changes that I am aware of. 

Mr. HIMES. And is this true throughout the Fed’s many regions? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe so. I am not aware of evidence to the contrary. 

Mr. HIMES. Okay. So to part two of my question, again, you have 

said that is not a reality, or at least not a material reality. So part 

two of the question is a little more challenging, which is, is it attributable to new banking regulations on small providers of credit? 

Are we seeing, are you, is the Fed observing dislocations in the 

credit market to small and medium-sized enterprises that might be 

attributable to new regulations? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We know that there are community banks that are 

struggling under regulatory burdens, and we are doing everything 

that we possibly can to address that. 

The fact that we are in a low-interest-rate environment also 

tends to put downward pressure on net interest margins that 

harms bank profitability. So it is a difficult environment for community banks. 

And as I said, there have always been in rural areas and for 

some small businesses difficulties in gaining access to credit. But 

I have not seen a change that would be attributable to the financial 

regulations we have in place. 

Mr. HIMES. Thank you. In my last 30 seconds, you said the Fed 

is doing everything they can to alleviate the burden on community 

banks. Can you just elaborate for 20 or 30 seconds on what the Fed 

is doing there? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have significantly increased the exemption 

under our small bank holding company policy rules so that now all 

holding companies under $1 billion are not subject to our consolidated capital rules. 

We have changed our exam processes to do more work off-site to 

make our exams more tailored. Through the EGRPRA process we 

are looking to reduce our regulatory burden. And we are contemplating a simplified capital rule for well-capitalized banks that 

would— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 

Luetkemeyer, chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, at a conference in June 2011, your predecessor, 

Chairman Bernanke, was asked a simple question in reference to 

the thousands of pages of Dodd-Frank and the tens of thousands 

of pages of implementing regulations. He was asked, ‘‘Has anyone 

bothered to study the cumulative effect of these things? Is all this 

holding back the economy at this point?’’ 

19 

And Chairman Bernanke responded, ‘‘Has anybody done a comprehensive analysis of the impact? I can’t pretend anybody really 

has. It is just too complicated. We don’t really have the quantitative tools to do that.’’ 

So following up on Chairman Neugebauer’s line of questioning 

here, you were asked, does the Fed study any of this? So I guess 

the question is, has an analysis been done of the cumulative effect 

of Dodd-Frank regulations as well as Basel III on broader economic 

variables such as credit availability, economy growth, capital formation, and job creation? Have you done any studies on that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Perhaps the kind of comprehensive analysis of everything that you are looking for hasn’t been undertaken, and I 

guess I would agree with Chairman Bernanke’s remarks. But Congress set out pretty clearly a road map for the regulators in terms 

of ways they wanted to see financial regulations— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. If you don’t have the tools, the ability to 

study this, how can you make regulations that pinpoint what you 

can do to improve the economy or know the effect of those rules? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Every time we put out a rule, we do an internal 

study of how to minimize burden under that rule. And we take 

public comments and ask for alternatives that could achieve the 

same goals with reduced burden. And so we are taking costs into 

account and trying to minimize those costs, while achieving— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. If you are doing it, Madam Chair, why, 

in the last 5 years, have there been almost no new bank charters 

issued? Why? What is your reasoning for that? Is it regulation? Or 

is it low interest rates? 

Mrs. YELLEN. The work that I have seen suggests that the challenging economic environment, a low-interest-rate environment and 

a sluggish economy— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So regulation doesn’t have anything to do 

with this? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am not aware of any studies that suggest that 

regulations are responsible for that. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. In your testimony you talk about how housing has continued to recover gradually. And if you look at the home 

building market, there are actually fewer home mortgage loans 

now than there were a year or two or three ago. And I go home 

and I talk to my local community banks, and there are some that 

got completely out of the home mortgage lending business. 

And so they go back and they point to rules and regulations as 

the reason for not doing this. They can’t comply. They can’t hold 

things in portfolio without being qualified, which infers there is an 

extra risk with their loans. They just said, we are not going to deal 

with the risk. And so now you have community banks no longer 

serving their communities, which is disastrous, in my mind. 

So the question is, these banks are telling me it is rules and regulations that are keeping this from happening. And the CFPB is 

kind of the main culprit here, with the QM rule and TRID. Do you 

coordinate at all with other agencies, whether it is the CFPB, the 

Treasury, other agencies when these rules are promulgated to see 

if there is a cumulative effect that could be negative out there that 

everybody should be watching for? 

20 

Mrs. YELLEN. We coordinate, many of our rules are joint with the 

other banking agencies. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Did you coordinate with the CFPB? 

Mrs. YELLEN. In the case of the CFPB, they are required to consult with us and we often offer comments to— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. So, did they accept your comments? Or did 

they ignore them? 

Mrs. YELLEN. There are a number of them. I would agree with 

you when it comes to mortgage credit that the new rules that we 

have, which are designed to end the abuses we saw in subprime 

lending and in the housing crisis— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. This all goes back— 

Mrs. YELLEN. They have made credit more difficult to obtain for 

individuals— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. This all goes back to monetary policy from 

the standpoint that rules and regulations are strangling our economy so that people can’t participate in the economy. And that goes 

back to, whether you are adjusting interest rates and trying to play 

with unemployment, that all goes back to the fact that you are 

dealing with lives every day, with the rules and regulations that 

you are messing with. 

And I think we need to understand the importance of that. And 

when you see the impact, fewer mortgage loans, banks not being 

formed. And a while ago you talked about the small-business folks, 

we had fewer small businesses, fewer businesses created in the last 

5 or 6 years than we lost. 

Mrs. YELLEN. True. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. That is the wrong direction. Small businesses 

are where you generate the jobs. And if we are not allowing those 

folks to be created, we are hurting ourselves. And it goes back to 

rules and regulations and monetary policy. 

Please do the research. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. 

Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Chair Yellen, for coming in today. You are here for 

your twice-a-year report on Humphrey-Hawkins. And I haven’t 

been able to read all of your monetary policy report or your opening 

statement, but I have gotten through some of it. And I just have 

really a couple of questions that maybe you could address. 

You say early on that inflation has continued to run below our 

2 percent objective. The Federal Open Market Committee expects 

inflation to rise to that level over the medium term. So you are 

meeting your target there. However, the pace of improvement in 

the labor market appears to have slowed more recently, suggesting 

that your cautious approach to adjusting monetary policy remains 

appropriate. 

What other things in the economy suggest that it may be slowing 

down? We are pretty far out in this economic expansion. Are there 

other things in your report that you could point to? 

Mrs. YELLEN. There are mixed developments in the economy. 

One thing we do note is that investment spending has been unusuVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:36 Feb 09, 2018 Jkt 025848 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\25848.TXT TERI
21 

ally weak in recent months. And the combination of particularly 

weak investment spending and, of course, investment spending has 

been very weak because of the decline in drilling and drilling and 

mining activity. The rig counts are way down because of the decline in energy prices. But we have seen weakness also outside of 

that. And the combination— 

Mr. CARNEY. Is that an overall plus or minus for the economy, 

the lower prices? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is not a plus for the economy because, first of 

all, it is a part of spending that supports growth, but it is highly 

relevant to productivity growth. 

Mr. CARNEY. Right. 

Mrs. YELLEN. And productivity growth has also slowed. So we 

are watching that carefully. We have a drag from slow growth in 

the rest of the world and a strong dollar that is negatively impacting trade-exposed sectors including— 

Mr. CARNEY. So, there are some pretty significant headwinds. 

Mrs. YELLEN. There are some headwinds. But on the other hand, 

we do have strengths. Consumer spending is particularly strong. 

And balancing everything out, we have an economy that is, for the 

last four quarters, growing about 2 percent. 

Growth was quite slow in the first quarter at the end of last 

year. It looks to be picking up. So, while we are watching things, 

I don’t want to send a message of pessimism about the economy 

and where we are going. 

Mr. CARNEY. So there is some pessimism underneath the unemployment numbers, which suggests that certain subgroups, African 

Americans and Hispanics, have higher unemployment rates, and 

you note that in your report. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Is there anything significant there that you can 

point to with respect to that issue? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think we should be very concerned about the fact 

that there are subgroups of the population who experience lower 

income and more distress in the labor market. And think about 

what we can do to address the problems of those groups. They have 

seen improvement. 

Mr. CARNEY. What about the quality of the jobs in that job 

group? I was talking to some folks the other day in my State of 

Delaware, and one of the guys in the conversation said,‘‘We need 

new old jobs.’’ And I knew exactly what he was talking about. We 

need the old kind of manufacturing jobs that we had at Chrysler 

and General Motors in our State, manufacturing jobs that paid a 

good income. 

Can you comment on that, the quality of the jobs that are being 

created? 

Mrs. YELLEN. So probably the quality of the jobs that are being 

created, we have created a lot of high-end jobs. So, it is not only— 

Mr. CARNEY. High-end jobs? 

Mrs. YELLEN. High-end jobs for skilled workers. 

Mr. CARNEY. Highly educated, skilled workers. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Right. And a lot of the kinds of jobs that you are 

referring to and middle-income jobs they disappeared. They declined and were hard hit in the downturn. 

22 

But over a longer period of time, probably since the mid 1980s, 

there have been a combination of pressures that have made those 

jobs fewer and far between. 

Mr. CARNEY. So I don’t know that you have monetary policy tools 

that you can use to address that. But on our side, on fiscal policy, 

we should be thinking about those kinds of tools that we might deploy. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think so. We are talking about secular trends relating to the nature of technical change and how it has raised the 

demand for skilled labor, trends relating to globalization. And then, 

what are we doing in terms of education, workforce development 

investment in your domain? 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Duffy, chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Chair Yellen. It is good to see you. 

I listened intently to your testimony and your commentary on 

the headwinds to our economy that I think all of us follow very 

closely, since it has a direct impact on all of our constituents. 

But I didn’t hear you comment on a couple of issues that concern 

me. Last year, there were 81,000 pages of new regulation. Between 

2009 and 2015, there were 550,000 new pages of regulation. Would 

you consider that a headwind for economic growth? 

Mrs. YELLEN. You are referring to our regulations? 

Mr. DUFFY. No, no. I am talking about government regulations 

across the spectrum. I hope you don’t have 550,000 new pages of 

regulation at the Fed. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t think we do. 

Mr. DUFFY. No, I don’t think you do, either. You have a lot. 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have additional regulations, we certainly do. 

The regulations that have been put in effect generally are intended to address problems. 

Mr. DUFFY. That is not my question. Are these headwinds to the 

economy or not? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is very hard to quantify the extent to which regulation is a headwind. 

Mr. DUFFY. But it would be a headwind? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Businesses certainly cite regulation as a factor affecting their decision-making. 

Mr. DUFFY. Then why don’t you cite it? If the businesses that you 

talk to cite this as a headwind, why don’t you cite it as a 

headwind? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I actually don’t think it is the most important 

headwind. It may be a headwind. 

Mr. DUFFY. Okay. And the U.S. corporate tax rate, 31.9 percent, 

the OECD average of corporate tax rate is 24.1 percent. We pay 15 

percent more in corporate taxes. That is 15 percent less money that 

goes into wages and economic development, research and development. Do you see that as a headwind? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think it is widely agreed that there could be constructive changes to the corporate tax system. 

23 

Mr. DUFFY. I have an individual in Wisconsin, that is where I 

am from, who has a manufacturing facility. He manufactures in 

Wisconsin and has facilities all over the country. And most manufacturers in his industry have all left America, they have all gone 

overseas. He is one of the few that are left. 

And he talks about how he spends $15,000 a year per employee on insurance, and $20,000 per employee on regulatory compliance. 

So $35,000 goes out the door per employee before he pays them one 

red cent in salary. Do you see that as a headwind? 

Mrs. YELLEN. These tax arrangements do have impacts on the 

profitability of various business activities. 

Mr. DUFFY. So, you would agree that would be a headwind? Or 

is that a benefit? Does that help him out? Does that help him grow 

jobs and salaries in his company, that $20,000 in regulatory compliance cost? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Different countries have different systems for dealing with health care and financing it. And the impacts are complicated. 

Mr. DUFFY. I will accept that as a non-answer. 

I want to change course a little bit. Looking back at the 2008 crisis—you have been at the fed For a while—were there any banks 

that failed that had a leverage ratio of 10 percent or higher that 

you are aware of? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t— 

Mr. DUFFY. If so, give me their names, if you would. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t know. But I can tell you that a lot of banks 

that failed were considered to be well-capitalized at the time that 

they failed. 

Mr. DUFFY. That is not my question, though. There are different 

definitions of well-capitalized. Do you know of any one bank that 

had a leverage ratio of 10 percent or higher failed? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I do not know. 

Mr. DUFFY. Because I have looked and I haven’t found one in the 

2008 crisis that failed with a leverage ratio of 10 percent or higher. 

And so I think you are aware that this committee is talking 

about a reform to Dodd-Frank, and I know that you are aware that 

many banks complain about the cost of compliance and what that 

does for them to make loans that would be good loans and traditional loans that they could usually make, but now they can’t because of new regulation which has an impact on our economy, economic growth, job creation. 

Do you oppose the idea that if you have a high leverage ratio, 

you hold good capital, that you can get out of some of the costly 

regulations that come from the Fed and other regulators? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I do think that for community banks it would be 

worthwhile to put in place a simplified capital regime. And the details, I am not certain of, but we are looking at this as well. 

Mr. DUFFY. Do you agree there is a correlation, though, between 

more capital and less regulation? Can you buy into that concept? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think for community banks, yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Because we are safer, right? We hold more capital, 

there is less risk to the economy. 

Mrs. YELLEN. For community banks, I think a simplified regime 

where there is less regulatory burden— 

24 

Mr. DUFFY. For larger banks, the answer is no? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I said for community banks. 

Mr. DUFFY. So, is the answer no for larger banks? 

Mrs. YELLEN. For systemically important banks, the answer is 

no. 

Mr. DUFFY. My time has expired. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a quick two questions for the record. The first, you had 

indicated earlier in your questioning that there was a situation of 

super strong economic growth where the Fed may have a period of 

negative income. 

And I was wondering if you could just provide a brief write-up 

of what that scenario would look like, in particular looking at the 

consolidated balance sheet of the government and acknowledge the 

fact that this super strong economic growth would be accompanied 

by a very large increase in tax revenues. 

And yes, would it be possible for you to make just a brief writeup? Or if you have a more detailed one, that would be great, too. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes, I think we could certainly do that. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. 

Secondly, earlier this week, Moody’s Analytics published a macroeconomic analysis of the policy proposals of one of the presidential candidates and they are in the process of doing a similar 

analysis for both presidential candidates. It is my understanding 

that you have a similar macroeconomic model that you run. I was 

wondering, would it be possible for you to run in your models the 

assumptions and see if you reproduce their results? Because they 

were rather impressive, there was trillions of dollars of loss to economic activity due to at least one set of these policy proposals. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Congressman Foster, we are a nonpartisan organization and I don’t want us, either me as the leader or our organization, to be involved in analyzing partisan issues. 

Mr. FOSTER. This is simply verifying the math, this is a mathematical question, a modeling question. 

I am not asking you to question or evaluate the assumptions. I 

am just saying under these assumptions, do you reproduce their 

numbers? Because you know, obviously, policymakers are at the 

mercy of the details of these very complex macro models. It would 

be reassuring to understand that there is some agreement between 

macroeconomics that you are talking in similar terms. Anyway, if 

you could— 

Mrs. YELLEN. I would say that our model, one of our workhorse 

models is in the public domain. We publish it on our website. If 

someone wanted to do it, they could download our model and feed 

in those assumptions. 

Mr. FOSTER. And reproduce those results? Do you find in general 

that there are not big differences? You are familiar with the 

Moody’s modeling and so on? Or do most of these models produce 

comparable results? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am not deeply familiar with the Moody’s model. 

My guess is it is similar in many ways to ours. But again, I am 

25 

not certain about the details, but our model is available to perform 

that kind of analysis. 

Mr. FOSTER. Sounds like a good job for a think tank, I guess. 

Okay, another sort of detailed, technical question. There have 

been reports that the European Commission is considering delaying 

the going live of margin requirements for unclear derivative trades. 

I believe that we are on schedule to have them go live in September, the beginning of September, and that there is some footdragging, at least reports of it. Is that something you are willing 

to engage the EC that they not do this, not delay these? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have worked very hard to put these in place. 

It is important that we put it in place here, and my understanding 

is that the delay will be very short. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. 

Another technical issue. Right now, the supplemental leverage 

ratio rule requires custody banks to hold capital against their deposits on the Federal Reserve. This is presumably a worry about 

some future scenario where the Federal Reserve will not be a reliable counterparty in some sort of financial panic. I was wondering 

if you would comment on the logic of this requirement to hold capital against deposits at the Fed? 

Mrs. YELLEN. So, a leverage ratio is typically not in a capital regime, it is not the binding requirement. It is a backup, simple 

measure that assesses capital against an entire balance sheet 

based on its size without differentiating the different riskiness of 

different assets. And it has always been imposed in this way. 

Mr. FOSTER. Custody banks are in a sort of unique position, as 

they have potentially very large and transient deposits of the Federal Reserves. I think for very good reasons, that is a behavior you 

want to encourage. And I just—it is a concern that I and other 

Members have expressed. And I think you should continue to look 

at that. 

Mrs. YELLEN. We will do so. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Let’s see, the last thing that I guess is relevant to those who are wearing the green shirts in the audience 

here. 

The Federal Reserve recently published an international finance 

discussion paper called, ‘‘Doves for the Rich and Hawks for the 

Poor,’’ which made the point that the real distributional consequences of whether in response to a monetary shock you try to 

maintain constant employment or constant pricing. And I was wondering, is that sort of thinking leaking into your consciousness? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are certainly very focused on maximum employment and wanting to promote stronger job markets with gains 

to all groups. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Illinois 

has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, 

Mr. Guinta. 

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Chair Yellen. Thank you for being here today. 

Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, we have seen the 

Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the Great Recession, 

and currently one of the slowest economic recoveries in quite some 

26 

time. When the Federal Reserve makes artificial decisions, setting 

interest rates, or fails to properly communicate on its monetary 

policy, it creates market volatility in my opinion, which weakens 

the effectiveness of the markets, making it harder for economic opportunities for all Americans. 

As you know, there has been considerable pushback to the Fed’s 

current approach to stress testing financial institutions from those 

who believe that the process has become increasingly arbitrary and 

unpredictable. The committee has heard concerns from regional 

banks that are subject to the stress tests that the exercise is not 

tailored to their size and complexity, which results in significant 

costs that outweigh any potential benefit from a safety and soundness perspective. 

To increase the transparency of the stress test process and ensure that Congress can hold the Fed accountable for its role in administering the tests, I would like to ask you, would you support 

legislation to require the Federal Reserve to issue regulations subject to public notice and comment spelling out in detail the scenarios it would rely upon in conducting those stress tests? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I wouldn’t support such legislation. 

I think it is very important that the scenarios be current and reflect risks that we assess to be important and relevant at a particular time that we are conducting those stress tests. And the 

delay that would be caused by putting out for comment particular 

scenarios would result in the test being stale. 

We put out a great deal of information about the stress tests. 

Our approach has been put out for public comment. We have model 

symposia, we have put out a great deal of information. And I don’t 

think that would result in a stronger process. 

Mr. GUINTA. How often do those environments change on an annual basis? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have new scenarios every year that we give to 

the firms and it is important that they— 

Mr. GUINTA. So, annually? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We put out a different set of scenarios annually. 

Mr. GUINTA. Why couldn’t that legislation be updated annually? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Because the delay in having public comment and 

revising things based on public comment would mean that we 

would have to start very much earlier, and wouldn’t have the advantage of developments that had taken place 

Mr. GUINTA. But it is possible to do that—don’t you think we 

could complete that in a 12-month period? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t think that it would add anything to the 

process and I think that it would make the scenario stale. 

Mr. GUINTA. I think it is important for accountability and I think 

it is also important for transparency. I think if we had this kind 

of requirement on an annual basis, we would probably have both. 

But I want to move on to a different issue. Dodd-Frank established the CFPB as a bureau within the Federal Reserve System. 

Can you tell me which of Richard Cordray’s decisions must be submitted to you for your approval? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We don’t approve decisions. The CFPB has to consult with us in the course of drawing up proposals. And I believe 

27 

that they have done so when we have tried to provide feedback and 

useful input. 

Mr. GUINTA. How often does Richard Cordray consult with you 

personally? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I have not consulted with him personally. 

Mr. GUINTA. So who are they consulting with then? 

Mrs. YELLEN. With our staff. 

Mr. GUINTA. Do you review and approve the CFPB’s budget? 

Mrs. YELLEN. No, we don’t approve their budget. 

Mr. GUINTA. Can you by law? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe the answer is no. 

Mr. GUINTA. I am told that the CFPB gets its funding simply by 

sending a letter each quarter requesting, in most cases, in excess 

of $100 million. Do you know if that is accurate? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t know the details of their budget, but we follow the law in— 

Mr. GUINTA. You personally don’t review the requests? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t think so. No. No, we do not. 

Mr. GUINTA. Wouldn’t you want to, as the head of the Federal 

Reserve, since they are created under your purview? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Congress set up a system in which we fund them, 

but don’t decide what their budget should be. 

Mr. GUINTA. Do you have any idea what their last budget request was? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t recall. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 

Heck. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Chair Yellen, I think almost unarguably, there is no person more 

responsible for the state of the economy than you are. 

And in my humble opinion, you have a pretty good track record 

in that regard. Car sales are up. Home sales are up. A constant 

steady drumbeat of private sector job creation has accumulated. 

And yet, I cannot shake the feeling that it is way too premature 

to put out the ‘‘mission accomplished’’ banner on the aircraft carrier and I think most Americans agree. 

I also think that the reason for that is because of an absence of 

wage growth. I think we are ticking upward now at about 21⁄2 percent. I know you will cite that, so I will do it first. Put frankly, 

Chair Yellen, that is fairly de minimis compared to the last recovery when it was 4 percent. My question is very straightforward, 

when does America get a pay raise? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think we are beginning to see slightly faster wage 

growth based on average hourly earnings. Wage growth is, over the 

last 12 months now, about 21⁄2 percent and that is up from the very 

low level it was. Readings on compensation, hourly compensation 

are very noisy, so it is hard to know, but it looks like we are seeing 

somewhat faster wage growth. I hope that it will be permanent. 

And other measures, other wage indicators, like the Atlanta 

Fed’s Wage Tracker, do show an improvement in wage growth. And 

I do believe that as the labor market continues to improve, and I 

certainly expect, and it will be our policy to continue to see further 

improvement, that will move up. But I would say one factor that 

28 

is a negative with respect to wage growth that we didn’t have, for 

example, in the second half of the 1990s, is that productivity 

growth has been very slow. 

So, if you ask what is a sustainable level of wage growth, given 

our 2 percent inflation target, kind of a rough measure, and of 

course this applies over long periods, not a quarter or even a year, 

that wages can grow at the rate of productivity growth plus the 

rate of inflation. So, with a 2 percent inflation target, you would 

expect wage growth of 2 percent plus productivity growth, trend 

productivity growth. Now, I believe since 2010 productivity growth 

has been running at a meager 1/2 percent per year. 

Mr. HECK. May I interrupt and ask if you think we are still accurately measuring productivity growth? Because I note a growing 

body of literature and scholarship around that question, that we 

may not be accurately measuring it anymore, do you believe that 

we are accurately measuring it? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think there is mismeasurement and the work has 

shown that there is— 

Mr. HECK. Can I ask you a question? 

Mrs. YELLEN. And definitely declines due to an increase in 

mismeasurement. 

Mr. HECK. I would like to ask you a question, however, about the 

relationship between employment and wage growth. 

We are at the Fed’s historic definition of full employment at 4.7 

percent, but we are still significantly above, that is U-3, we are still 

significantly above on U-6. If they could put that slide up, I would 

appreciate it. 

I think the latest number was 9.7 percent. The gap between U6 and U-3 is greater than it was pre-recession. 

So, Chair Yellen, what does U-6 have to be at to constitute what 

you would deem to be full employment? And what would be the relationship of that measure of full employment? Because we still 

have 10 percent of the employment base which either isn’t employed and wants to be, is discouraged, or working part time and 

wants to work full time. What is the relationship? What is the 

point at which U-6 is ‘‘full employment,’’ and then what would be 

the effect on wage increases? Because I think at the end of the day, 

most Americans and even everybody on this panel, these and ours, 

would like to see America get a pay raise. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I agree with what you just said, that U-6 is not 

back to pre-recession levels to, say 2007 levels, U-3 is. Involuntary 

part-time employment which is in U-6 is very high relative to prerecession levels. 

Mr. HECK. I have 4 seconds, can you give me a number, Chair 

Yellen? What is full employment under U-6? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am not sure of the number but it does show a 

margin of slack. 

Mr. HECK. A range? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Adding part-time employment to an unemployed 

person is a difficult thing to do. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you. Just let me conclude by saying I am not 

sure why you take your foot off the pedal before we— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired. 

29 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, as you know, I also sit on the House Agriculture 

Committee, and I have a particular interest in the creation and implementation of rules governing our derivatives market and ensuring that a level playing field exists for U.S. companies. I would first 

like to commend the Fed’s efforts in working to set global standards within these markets. I think can all agree that it is certainly 

in the best interest of U.S. competitiveness that as global standards are developed there is consistency in the rules and their effective dates throughout various jurisdictions. 

I would therefore like to discuss the European Commission’s recent announcement that it will delay implementation of the margin 

rules for uncleared over-the-counter derivatives until mid-2017. 

The United States currently plans to move forward with an agreedupon implementation date of September 1, 2016. And while the 

United States is ready to move forward, I am very concerned about 

the impact that this variation in effective dates will have on U.S. 

companies. 

Given this likely variation date on the implementation dates, 

what can be done to mitigate fragmentation and to ensure that a 

level playing field exists for U.S. firms? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have worked very hard to get ready to implement these rules. The firms are ready to put them into effect. And 

my understanding is that the delay from the EU is going to be 

short. And we will continue to monitor that. These are markets 

where it is important to have a level playing field, I agree with 

that. 

Mr. LUCAS. But even in the briefest of times, assuming that it 

is a year or less, September of 2016 to sometime in mid-2017, 

should we be concerned that market participants will limit their 

trading with U.S. counterparties during this period of time? Will 

we change their habits and patterns while they look for standards 

or opportunities that might be slightly more advantageous assuming the new rules will be more restrictive than the existing system? 

Should we be concerned that people will do business outside of the 

United States during this period? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Hopefully, it will be a very short period. 

Mr. LUCAS. I guess ultimately where I am going, Chair Yellen, 

is I represent constituencies in Oklahoma in agriculture and energy that use these products, both in the production of, the processing of, and the ultimate retail sales of. They are products that 

I am told that their bankers insist upon using, that both banking 

regulators at state and Federal level insist that they be used. 

My concern is that if we move forward ahead of the Europeans, 

we will create a situation for months or a year that will disadvantage not only the consumers of these derivative products, but the 

market makers, too. And once patterns are established, will we be 

able to overcome that sometime in 2017 or later? So ultimately, I 

am asking you, suggesting to you that it might well be in the Fed’s 

and the economy’s best interest to continue to try to coordinate our 

effective dates with the Europeans. And if they are not going in 

30 

2016, maybe we shouldn’t go either. Do you see where I am coming 

from on this point? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I do. It is an issue we need to watch carefully. If 

there is a delay in Europe, we need to consider what impact it will 

have and to work closely with the Europeans to make sure this is 

a— 

Mr. LUCAS. As you know, and as our colleagues on this committee know, we are talking about a tremendous amount of dollars 

in business. We are talking about establishing patterns, relationships. I just worry that this will create an undue burden on my 

constituents and on the market makers in this country, and that 

we won’t be able to recover. Whether it is an accident that the Europeans are delaying or it is a good business tactic, I don’t know. 

We need to be coordinated in whatever we do, there is too much 

at stake. 

Thank you for acknowledging that, Chair Yellen. 

With that, on the behalf of my farmers and ranchers, I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin talked to you about the number 

of pages of regulations. I practiced tax law, and advised a lot of 

small businesses. And this idea of number of pages of regulations 

is a great sound bite, but has nothing to do with actually making 

it easier for businesses to transact business. If you look at tax law, 

thank God we have long pages of regulations so we can find out 

what the answer is. 

In the area of antitrust law, the regulations are basically nonexistent. And so, you go to a law library and you read hundreds 

of pages of court decisions and you still don’t know what the answer is. So, the idea that more pages of business regulations means 

more problems for business is a great political sound bite, but it 

is actually government agencies clarifying what the law means. 

As to the tax rate, I would point out that we don’t have a valueadded tax in this country, which all those comparative countries 

do. There is no one who has put forth the plan to replace the revenue from the decline in the corporate income tax. And the one 

thing the majority party has suggested is eliminating the earned 

income tax credit to really sock it to families trying to make it on 

$20,000 and $25,000 a year. 

There is, of course, a loss of manufacturing jobs. That is not because we have regulations that clarify what congressional statutes 

mean, that is because we got really bad trade deals that Congress 

has ratified or approved. And I will point out that Congress is now 

geared up to use the chicanery of a lame-duck session to approve 

a TPP deal that is terrible for America, so terrible that you can’t 

find a presidential candidate who is willing to support it. 

Chair Yellen, you are going to be told, you have been told in this 

room by many that your rates are too low, your balance sheet is 

too big. People who say that are wrong. America is under-performing. Our inflation rate is lower than your target. And our labor 

participation rate is lower than everyone’s target. 

31 

As to the size of your balance sheet, I know that you focus on 

the effect it has on the economy as a whole. But there is also the 

tens of billions of dollars that you turn over to the Treasury. Do 

you and your fellow FMOC members ever spend any time wondering whether Congress is going to have the money to provide a 

school lunch program, a school breakfast program? When you factor 

in how big your balance sheet should be, do you envision hungry 

kids here in America and how the money you turn over to this Congress could be used to feed them? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are very focused on the dual mandate that 

Congress has given us, namely full employment and price stability. 

And the size of our balance sheet and the stance of monetary policy 

is all designed to promote those objectives rather than trying to 

make a profit. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just say that earning— 

Mrs. YELLEN. But we are pleased to be able to turn over $100 

billion checks, but that is not what draws policy. But we’re glad to 

be able— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Speaking on behalf of the Congress that would 

otherwise have to cut cancer research or cut school lunches, thank 

you for the $100 billion checks and please do factor that in. 

Mrs. YELLEN. You are welcome. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The world is focused on Brexit. And it may be 

good or bad long term for the world. We don’t know. That is a decision for Britain to make. 

There are some at the extreme who are painting this as some immediate world calamity. I just want to ask a question about your 

schedule. Have you scheduled some sort of emergency meeting on 

Friday because you envision some great calamity happening to the 

world on Thursday, or is the British vote just one of the many 

things that you will consider at the next regularly scheduled meeting? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is a risk that we are monitoring. I have said 

that, we will be watching closely to see what the vote is and what 

possible repercussions it might have. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But you haven’t blocked off Friday and Saturday 

on your personal schedule for emergency meetings as if the hurricane is coming to envelope the entire world? 

Mrs. YELLEN. No, I haven’t. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Mr. ROYCE. Chair Yellen, welcome. 

I am worried that the Federal Reserve has created a third pillar 

of monetary policy, that of a stable and rising stock market. And 

I say that because then-Chairman Bernanke, when he appeared 

here, stated repeatedly that the goal of QE was to increase asset 

prices like the stock market to create a wealth effect. So it seemed 

as though that was the goal. 

It would stand to reason then that in deciding to raise rates and 

reduce the Fed’s QE balance sheet standing at a still-record $41⁄2

trillion, one would have to be prepared to accept the opposite reVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:36 Feb 09, 2018 Jkt 025848 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\25848.TXT TERI
32 

sult, a declining stock market and a slight deflation of the asset 

bubble that QE created. 

Yet, every time in the past 3 years when there has been a hint 

of raising rates and the stock market has declined accordingly, the 

Fed has cited stock market volatility as one of the reasons to stay 

the course and hold rates at zero. So indeed, the Fed has backed 

away so many times from rate normalization that, and I think this 

is a conceptual problem here, that the market now expects stock 

market volatility to diminish the odds of a rate increase. 

So, Madam Chair, is having a stable and rising stock market a 

third pillar of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, if I go back 

to what I originally heard Ben Bernanke articulate? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is not a third pillar of monetary policy. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Mrs. YELLEN. We do not target the level of stock prices. That is 

not an appropriate thing for us to do. 

Mr. ROYCE. I thought you would say that. So, the question I have 

as a follow up is, does that mean that you are prepared to accept 

stock market volatility or a slight deflating of the asset bubbles as 

the Fed proceeds toward normalization? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are going to look at what the trajectory is for 

the economy, for the goals Congress has assigned us, namely inflation and maximum employment, and take policies we think are appropriate to foster them. 

Now, as the economy recovers, we have said we anticipate raising rates. What implications that may have for stock prices, one 

shouldn’t assume that it will necessarily be a negative scenario for 

stock prices. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Higher rates to some extent are already built into 

longer-term interest rates. Longer-term interest rates are anticipating a path of rising short-term rates. They do matter to stock 

market valuations, but so do earnings in a strong growth economy. 

We are not targeting equity prices, we are trying to achieve outcomes for the economy. 

Mr. ROYCE. And then there is another aspect of this that I wanted to ask you. This is my last question. 

In September of 2015, you were asked whether you were worried 

that given the global interconnectedness, the low inflation globally— 

Mrs. YELLEN. The low inflation what? 

Mr. ROYCE. —globally that we were seeing, were you worried 

that you may never escape from this zero lower bound situation? 

And you answered at the time that while you couldn’t completely 

rule it out, that is not the way that you see the outlook or the way 

the committee sees the outlook. 

Since that time, in February, Governor Brenner suggested that 

financial tightening associated with cross-border spillovers may be 

limiting the extent to which U.S. policy diverges from major economies. 

New York Fed President Bill Dudley has said that global consequences can impact the monetary policy transmission mechanism 

in the United States and influence the effectiveness of our monetary policy in achieving our objectives. 

33 

So my question then is restating the question from last year, not 

will we never escape, but will we escape any time soon? And maybe 

to put it more clearly, does the Fed have the capacity to defy the 

global pattern of zero or negative rates, if it that is the global reality? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We do have the capacity to have different rates 

than the rest of the world, but we have to recognize that differentials in our stance of policy impact, for example, the value of the 

dollar and that is a linkage back to the U.S. economy. 

So, those linkages, as my colleague said, are important, but the 

bottom line is what happens in the rest of the world and their 

stance of policy it does matter, but it doesn’t mean we can never— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Chair, the current wealth gap between upper-income 

households and the rest of the country is the widest it has been in 

the last 30 years. The Great Recession exacerbated this troubling 

gap and had profound effects along racial lines. 

On average, African Americans lost 52 percent of their wealth. 

Latinos lost 66 percent, but Whites only lost 16 percent. What type 

of ramifications will this type of racial wealth gap have on our 

country’s long-term economic growth? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think the trends that you discussed, and we discussed some related data in this monetary policy report, are extremely disturbing. There has been some research that has tried to 

look at the links between inequality and growth and they are 

frankly complex and I don’t think we fully understand them. But 

one linkage is that higher-income individuals may spend less of 

their income than lower-income individuals. 

So, rising inequality may suppress the growth rate of consumer 

spending and harm our growth in that way. There may be linkages 

in terms of ability and desire and opportunity for education and 

training that can have a long-run negative impact on growth. 

I think we are just beginning to understand these complicated 

linkages, but it is certainly a very disturbing phenomenon. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So there is a correlation in terms of the type of 

public policy that we enact to address those disparities. It will have 

long-term consequences. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I believe they can have, yes, can have long-term 

consequences. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So as the economy continues to gain strength 

and we move back to normalized monetary policy, Fed decisions 

will have an impact on credit markets. And this has a number of 

businesses concerned about the availability and cost of capital. 

Is there any indication that the last rate increase had an impact 

on credit availability for small businesses? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We raised rates by 25 basis points. That is a very 

small amount. And I am not aware of any significant repercussions 

that has had for the cost of consumer credit. We have said that we 

expect the path of rate increases to be gradual and that we will be 

very cautious about raising rates. We will only do so in the context 

34 

of an economy that is performing well with the strong job market 

that is growing at a good pace where people’s incomes are rising. 

And we would do that to make sure that we achieve price stability, 

which is our congressional objective. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. So we discussed the current wealth gap 

between Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. I would like to rise another 

issue and that is the cost of student loans. 

Student loan debt now stands at more than $1.35 trillion, a figure that has nearly tripled over the past decade. Some experts 

have reported that the average student loan debt for the class of 

2016 is $37,000 per borrower. 

What type of consequences for lifetime wealth creation do these 

levels of debt present for young people? 

Mrs. YELLEN. First of all, the importance of gaining an education 

and the advantages that come with that and the higher income 

make it critically important that funds be available to students to 

gain that education. So let me start there. 

But if a student takes on that debt and then, as happens all too 

often, doesn’t end up completing a degree or goes to an institution 

that doesn’t provide training that enabled them to get that higherwage job, that can be a very, very serious burden and I think for 

many minorities, this is a huge burden. 

And so we actually plan to hold a conference at the Fed on this 

topic next November. We are going to look at this issue and focus 

particularly on minority communities and the impact. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. 

Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, thanks for being here today. 

Let me wrap up some of the old business here. So, my good 

friend from Washington asked, when does America get a pay rise? 

And you sort of in your answer hinted that if the global market 

continues to improve—is that what I heard you say? If the global 

market continues to improve, then we can expect better wage 

growth? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think if the labor market continues to improve, 

we will see some pickup in wage growth. But I did want to indicate 

that we have at the moment low productivity growth, very low, 

that wage growth will be greater over time if productivity growth 

picks up. If it doesn’t— 

Mr. PEARCE. Right. I guess my main point is that there are many 

who see the global market as not improving at all. So, kind of the 

inference that it is moving in the right direction, or if it would just 

do a little bit more of it, it is going to okay, is one there are differing opinions on. 

For instance, just in very recent days, a significant article came 

out talking about how business spending is down, exports are 

down, consumers are very cautious, and many of the foreign countries are having difficulty. 

That is a little bit in contrast to your report. You talk about the 

14 million jobs created. That is one of your objectives. And you also 

referred to the unemployment rate being below 5 percent. 

35 

So those all would indicate a fairly good opinion from the Federal 

Reserve about the condition of the economy. Am I interpreting that 

right? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes. I think the labor market is in a pretty healthy 

condition. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay, but, yes, my question is the recovery. 

Mrs. YELLEN. There are a lot of jobs available. 

Mr. PEARCE. The recovery is pretty well in place that it is moving 

along. 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have achieved a lot. We have gotten to a much 

better place. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. But my question really is that in February 

of 2014, you stated that, I know this is difficult for seniors, in other 

words, a zero interest rate because they typically do very liquid 

things and they don’t like risk. When we have accomplished recovery, rates of return will come back. And so I wonder when the seniors are going to see those rates come back? When are they going 

to see that? Because the seniors are the ones who have paid the 

bill through this entire thing. 

When we drive the rates of interest down, that penalizes their 

savings. And they tell me, I lived my life correctly, I paid for my 

house, and you all messed up the housing market, and I saved 

money and you all make it where my money is worth nothing in 

the bank. 

So, when can they expect to see an increase in their rate of return? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I can’t give any guarantee on that, but if the economy progresses along the lines I expect, I think it will be appropriate to gradually increase rates further. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. But you have previously answered my question that you felt like we have made a lot of progress. Yet, seniors 

haven’t seen any progress. So, I think that is one of the continuing 

problems that we have. 

I also want to ask, now, you mentioned and it is well known that 

the Federal Reserve’s objective is maximum employment. Do you 

have kind of a handbook that you have put out on how to achieve 

maximum employment? Something that political candidates, like 

maybe a candidate for President, might say that she is going to get 

rid of all the coal mining jobs? Do you have a handbook that says, 

if you do that, you are going to put pressure on the economy over 

here? Do you put out anything at all? I know you don’t want to be 

very political, but do you put out anything at all? 

Because when I look at the things that the government does, I 

draw a different conclusion than what my friend Mr. Sherman 

draws. I see regulations that say, the haze regulation for instance, 

that is being implemented in the West, you can’t see the difference 

in the haze in the air, you actually have to have a computer to 

measure it. But using that regulation, coal miners being sent to the 

house in New Mexico make $60,000 a year, and they are going to 

then be on subsistence-level of government support checks. And 

that is an actual regulation that is penalizing the job markets. 

So I see those penalties, but do you put out a fact sheet that 

says, look, if you increase minimum wage, Burger King is going to 

go and announce they are going to put kiosks in. And so, the poor 

36 

people are never going to get into the labor market, and so the gap 

between the rich and the poor is going to increase because we have 

outsourced, we have sent those jobs out of America that are on the 

low end of the scale that allow people to get into the workforce. 

And so I wonder if you all do that, because if you are in charge 

of a trillions-of-dollars economy, it seems like you would put out 

some sort of a fact sheet so people sitting on this side of the desk 

could actually have some idea of what effect their policies would 

have. 

And I guess the answer is no, you don’t put out a fact sheet. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think not one of the type that you were describing. 

Mr. PEARCE. It is funny that we have trillions of dollars at risk, 

but we don’t have the best practices. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Alabama, Ms. Sewell. 

Ms. SEWELL. Thank you. 

Chair Yellen, I apologize if you have answered this question. But 

as you know, 127 Members of Congress, both Senators and House 

Members, and I was one of them, sent a letter last month highlighting the fact that the Federal Reserve Act mandates that the 

presidents and the board of directors at the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks ‘‘represent the public.’’ 

Despite this mandate, there is only one non-White regional bank 

president and he is also the only non-White member of the FOMC; 

83 percent of Federal Reserve board members are White and men 

make up nearly three-fourths of those directorships. One-third of 

the 12 regional Federal Reserve presidents are either former executives or trustees at Goldman Sachs. 

In response to the letter, you said that, ‘‘45 percent of the directors are either women or minorities, meaning 55 percent are White 

males.’’ Does your response indicate that you believe the leadership 

at the Federal Reserve bank is fulfilling its mandate to ‘‘present 

the public with due consideration,’’given the enormous economic interests of our diverse Nation? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Let me start by saying that I believe that diversity 

is extremely important in all parts of the Federal Reserve, but I 

do want to distinguish two different things. 

There are, if we were at full strength, 19 members of the FOMC, 

that is 12 presidents, and we are now at 5 board members, there 

are supposed to be seven. And then a completely separate category 

of leadership are the directors of the Federal Reserve banks, there 

are nine at each bank and then there are branch boards that also 

have their own boards of directors. 

I do believe we have made substantial progress in achieving diversity and improving our performance among directors at the reserve banks in the branch boards. I believe the figure that you 

cited, the 45 percent, refers to those directors. At this point, 24 percent of those directors are minorities, an additional 30 percent are 

women, and in total women and minorities come to the number 

that you cited. 

Now, among the reserve bank presidents, we are looking at 12 

presidents, as you said, one is a minority and then there are two 

women reserve bank presidents. I would very much like to see 

37 

greater diversity at that level, too. And it is a goal that I hope we 

will make progress on in the coming years. 

The procedures for appointing those presidents are set out in the 

Federal Reserve Act. The board has to approve the appointments 

of presidents that are recommended by the Class B and C directors 

of the reserve banks. We insist and make sure that the searches 

for those presidencies are national, that the candidate pool is diverse, and that due consideration is given to diversity as an important goal. We welcome and have been recently taking public suggestions from the public about possible candidates and when these 

searches are launched, we will make sure that candidates who are 

suggested gain full consideration. 

Ms. SEWELL. Now, I know it has been considered or suggested 

that the Board of Governors fill the Class C directors on each regional bank’s board with at least one individual from an academic 

background, one from a consumer or community-based organization, and one representative from a labor organization. What does 

the Fed think about this recommendation, and does the Board of 

Governors have a strategy for increasing the diversity of its leadership so that candidates are considered who have a variety of backgrounds, not just solely that of Wall Street? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We track diversity, not only in terms of gender and 

race, but also in terms of experience. 

And I believe we have made considerable progress in achieving 

the kind of diversity you are discussing. I believe in every reserve 

bank branch there is an individual, might be an academic or someone who represents communities and nonprofits, and we are constantly trying to add to our ranks of people who represent labor. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, first of all, I want to thank you for the inspector 

general going through your cybersecurity policies. I want to encourage you to listen to what he has to say because you are on the 

frontline really of our affairs when it comes to cybersecurity. So, I 

just wanted to thank you for that. 

The other thing I wanted to do is make some comments between 

the tit and tat kind of thing, between the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from California, as far as the new regulations. There were approximately 3,000 new regulations last year 

with 81,000 pages of it. 

The gentleman from California said this was to explain, these 

pages, he was thankful for them because they were there to explain 

the regulation. Ma’am, where I am from, if it takes you 27 pages 

to explain something you are trying to tell somebody, something is 

way too complicated. 

And that is the point of some of the other questions that have 

been here before, is the complex regulations are requiring all types 

of compliance officers. Banks are being taken down with this. 

Sometimes they have more compliance officers than they do loan 

officers. So I guess my question to you regarding these overly burdensome regulations that are on our small banks is, is it a priority 

of the Federal Reserve and for other members really of the Federal 

38 

financial institutions, examination councils, is it your priority to 

get these regulations off? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is our priority to do everything that we possibly 

can to reduce regulatory burden. 

I think we have already taken some significant steps. We are 

completing the EGRPRA review. I believe we will take more steps 

in light of that review. And we are looking carefully at a very simplified capital regime that could apply to these community banks 

if they are well-capitalized and managed. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I feel like I have been asking this same 

question now since 2008. My district probably had more community 

bank failures than any other district in the United States. 

And we keep hearing this over and over about, we are looking 

at regulations and so forth. So, is there any way that you could 

give me some type of timeline as to when something may come out 

about this? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have already put quite a few things in place. 

So, it is not that everything is in the future. We have raised our 

thresholds to a billion dollars for capital requirements to apply to 

small holding companies. We have changed our examination process so that our examiners spend much less time in bank premises. 

We have made our examinations more risk-based so that we 

focus on those risks that really are relevant to banks. We have 

taken a number of steps. We meet regularly, twice a year with a 

group called CDAC which is community banks to hear their perspectives and take their suggestions when we can. We have a special committee of the board that focuses on community banks and 

assesses different ways to reduce burden. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank you and I hope that you have been 

communicating with the community banks, too, about what you can 

do to actually help them. 

One other thing just to follow up, as I mentioned, in my district 

in Georgia, we know what it is like to lose a bank. While the Federal Government is focusing on economic policies for large banks, 

designating banks and non-banks as SIFIs, conducting stress tests, 

all the while these policies are still creating that notion that large 

banks are too-big-to-fail. 

And so I guess my point is that somehow there has to be a more 

distinct classification between banks and the size of banks. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I agree with that. We want to tailor our regulations so that they are appropriate to the risks. And we are likely 

to make changes to the stress testing regime that would reduce 

burden on some of the smaller banking organizations that are subject to that process. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, when you visited here the last time, I raised the 

issue about the high rate of unemployment among African Americans. It is absolutely staggering. In some of our communities, particularly with African-American males between the ages of 18 and 

37, it is over 22 percent, and in some communities it is as high as 

39 

50 percent, which leads to all kinds of problems, the crime problem, 

but more importantly the breakdown in the African-American family, because these young men who are age 18 to 37, that is the 

childbearing age. 

So, we have to look at this as a national crisis. And I ask you 

to do that. And you told me, you said that, Mr. Scott, I don’t have 

the tools to do what you are asking. 

But I say to you, Mrs. Yellen, you do have the tools. You have 

your voice. You have your position. You have a dual mandate to 

curb inflation, but also to deal with unemployment. And we need 

you to use that voice to holler loud and clear that this is a national 

crisis. It is the number-one domestic problem that we have in this 

country because of the devastation and the impact in the AfricanAmerican community. 

But here is what really concerns me. Since you say you don’t 

have the tools, why are you so eager to change course on monetary 

policy and raise interest rates yourself when the unemployment 

level in the African-American community is so high? 

Now, you said it yourself, you said here that your future rate increases depending on the data you have. Well, to me, Chair Yellen, 

the data is telling a pretty clear story: one, we are well-below the 

2 percent inflation target; and two, growth abroad in places like 

China is anemic. And most importantly, the dollar remains strong. 

So tell me, Chair Yellen, what harm do you see in holding the 

interest rate at its current level until we can get our hands around 

this problem and get some improvement in the African-American 

unemployment rate? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Congressman, I do want to call attention to the 

material that we included in this monetary policy report and intend to continue including that discusses the situation, the labor 

market situation of African Americans and other minority groups. 

And it does document, as you said, the high unemployment rates 

of African Americans. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, I know it, but— 

Mrs. YELLEN. But there has been improvement. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is so frustrating to me is that you are in the 

position to say something, to do something. This is intolerable. You 

are the only agency with this dual mandate. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Congressman, we are doing something. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are doing something extremely important, 

which is putting in place a monetary policy that has brought down 

unemployment rates and improved the labor market for all groups 

in American society and trying to do that in the context of our price 

stability mandate. 

And as serious as the suffering is in the African-American community, and it is, there has been improvement and there will continue to be improvement and our policies are designed to make 

sure that we continue to have improvements in the labor market 

that will benefit the African-American community and others as 

well. 

And I have used my voice and I will continue to do so. And in 

the work that we do in community development, we will continue 

to use the tools at our disposal to try to identify interventions— 

40 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me try to identify something right here. We are 

in the midst, legislatively, of doing things like building the Keystone Pipeline. Why can’t we target that so these young people can 

get jobs or they can learn the basic skills as they work? Earn as 

you learn, get them involved with labor unions that have skill programs. 

We just passed a bill to be able to lift the embargo on crude oil. 

That is going to spread out 200,000 jobs. We have to look at our 

economy and point out areas where we can get African-American 

young men into the wheel to learn these skills. 

Mrs. YELLEN. This is for Congress to consider. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have done that. And we have done our job— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. We need some leadership from you and this Administration. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. And let me follow up on the question 

that the gentleman was just talking about, about the negative, disastrous impact that the Fed has had on the African-American community and the poor in this country. 

Last year you gave a speech on income inequality and you said 

that the income gap between the rich and the poor has long been 

of interest to you and the Federal Reserve, and you expressed concern about that and basically your comments were eerily similar to 

what the Administration has been saying. 

You lamented the problem, but failed to admit to acknowledge in 

your comments that it is your actions and the Fed and the government policies that can have a dramatic impact on expansion of the 

gap between rich and the poor. 

In fact, we are often reminded by the Federal Reserve and our 

President how low-income families have fallen behind during this 

Administration’s last 8 years. We have seen the greatest monetary 

expansion and regulatory assault in history, and I think there is 

no coincidence. 

So let us look at your predecessor, what he said. Chair Bernanke 

acknowledged on more than one occasion that monetary policy has 

the effect of raising asset prices, in particular the stock market, I 

am sure you agree with him. The question then we have is, who 

does that really benefit? Who does your policy benefit? 

Let me give you a number. According to Gallup, the survey, 90 percent of households with incomes over $75,000 own stock; only 

21 percent of households under $30,000 own stock. So, if your policies, as Ben Bernanke indicated it does and you are nodding your 

head as well, benefits the stock market, raises asset prices, who are 

you benefiting? The rich. Who are you hurting? The poor. 

So, the stock market has boomed. The biggest beneficiaries have 

been households with income well above the national median and 

particularly those at the very top where the wealth in the stock 

market is concentrated. So, that is what the gentleman is pointing 

out, your policies. He is looking for leadership, but leadership to 

lead in the other direction, not always helping the rich, but hurting 

the poor. 

41 

And another area that we see where you take the pattern of 

helping the rich and not the poor is, where does the average poor 

person making under $30,000 put their money? In the stock market? No, they put it into savings accounts. Now, according to the 

FDIC, the average rate of return in America is 6 basis points. 

At the same time, you are paying Wall Street banks 50 basis 

points to park their money over there. So the question is, why do 

you see the need to benefit the Goldman Sachs CEOs of the world 

and pay them more than the small, local banks on Main Street 

where my constituents have to invest their money? Do you see a 

need to benefit the rich continuously to the disadvantage of the 

poor? Why is that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I’m sorry, we are not trying to benefit the rich at 

the expense of the poor. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. So your statement is your intention is not 

to benefit the rich, but the facts of Ben Bernanke and others, what 

you are nodding your head, is your actions are benefiting the rich 

over the poor because of your monetary policy. Is that correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is not correct. 

Mr. GARRETT. Which part is not? Is it not the fact—is Gallup 

wrong when they say the rich are more likely to invest in the stock 

markets than the poor? Is that not correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. That is true. 

Mr. GARRETT. That is true. Is it not true that your quantitative 

easing according to Ben Bernanke also benefits asset purchases? 

Mrs. YELLEN. 14 million jobs— 

Mr. GARRETT. Is that a fact? 

Mrs. YELLEN. —is what our policy— 

Mr. GARRETT. Excuse me. I have the floor. I am trying to find 

out which fact is wrong. 

The fact of the matter is is that the rich own stock, you said yes. 

The fact of the matter is that quantitative easing increases asset 

purchases, you said yes, asset prices, you said yes. The fact of the 

matter is that you are indicating yes, that is increasing the valuation of stock, you are indicating yes. And the fact of the matter 

is, is that for the average poor person, they are not in the stock 

market, they are in banks. You are saying yes. So all those facts 

are correct. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Houses are widely held by most families and low 

interest rates have also— 

Mr. GARRETT. But as far as where most people have their investments. 

Mrs. YELLEN. —have also benefited from rising house prices. 

Mr. GARRETT. Part of the problem is that although you admit 

here today that it is not your intention to help the rich over the 

poor, that when you are nodding yes on every point I raise, is that 

the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve over the last several 

years of your tenure benefits the rich over the poor and creates a 

greater expansion of income inequality. 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am sorry— 

Mr. GARRETT. Let me go on to the next question. I only have a 

minute here. 

With regard to your balance sheet, I can’t get into the details as 

far as the significant increase over time and the increase in the 

42 

risk in the market. I understand the question was already raised 

on whether you do a stress test on yourself and the answer was 

no? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Yes, we have. 

Mr. GARRETT. Oh, you do do stress tests like you do on the banks 

on yourself? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have performed that exercise. 

Mr. GARRETT. And do you believe then that interest rate risks 

and credit risks of your portfolio in this position now is at greater 

risk than it was before when it was— 

Mrs. YELLEN. We have no credit risk in your portfolio. We only 

hold government and agency— 

Mr. GARRETT. You are immune to credit rate risk? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think U.S. Treasury bonds are a pretty safe investment. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 

Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Hello, Chair Yellen. I appreciate you being here, 

and I appreciate all the work that you do. 

I would like to commend the Fed for its decision to keep interest 

rates low. I believe keeping interest rates low helps calm and 

strengthen our economy. I also wish Congress had chosen to act as 

assertively and creatively as the Federal Reserve did. The truth is 

that without the Federal Reserve working, the fact is we have had 

absolutely no fiscal assistance around here at all. 

And I think if you looked at the historic amount of obstruction 

that we have seen, it is really quite remarkable that anybody in 

Congress would be shaking a finger at the Fed given how little we 

have done to try to stimulate the economy and to help low-income 

Americans. If Congress had funded an infrastructure bank for example and rebuilt schools, bridges, roads, and transit, we would 

have lower unemployment and a stronger economy. Lord knows we 

need it. Lord knows that our infrastructure is crumbling all around 

us. 

Interest rates are at historic lows, we could really rebuild this 

economy if we would have taken fiscal action. I would like to ask 

you this, Chair Yellen, if the Congress approved money for infrastructure development, would that have a positive effect on employment? How would it impact wages? How would it impact our productivity if we had better, more improved infrastructure? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I can’t give you a detailed assessment, but I certainly would agree that productivity growth has been very weak. 

We have had a shortage of investment, private investment has 

been very weak. That is one reason I think that productivity 

growth has been so meager and generally having a stronger rate 

of investment. 

There are other things as well, education and training make a 

difference here and supporting research and development. But 

those things would contribute, I believe, to stronger productivity 

growth and ultimately faster wage growth. 

Mr. ELLISON. If you look historically at the amount of fiscal investment, how does the era that we have been in for the last, say, 

43 

5, 6 years compare with other periods of fiscal investment in our 

Nation’s history? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips. 

Mr. ELLISON. I am not going to sue you. 

Mrs. YELLEN. But I think the answer is low. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. And so you are supposed to fix the economy, 

but we don’t suppose to do anything. 

Mrs. YELLEN. We can use some help, thank you. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes, okay. When you were here in February, you 

and I had an exchange on what the Federal Reserve could do to 

increase employment for African Americans. And I wonder if you 

had any update for me. Has the Federal Reserve been able to think 

about a traditional policy toolkit to specifically consider investments and action that might impact African Americans, Latinos, 

Native Americans, and low-income people? 

In addition to keeping interest rates low, are there more targeted 

tools that the Federal Reserve is considering or might recommend? 

Mrs. YELLEN. In terms of our general stance on monetary policy, 

we have seen a lot of improvement. And it has benefited African 

Americans in spite of the fact that there remains so much distress 

among African Americans and in the labor market that concerns 

us. Nevertheless, there have been improvements. 

We don’t have tools in monetary policy to target particular 

groups. We want to make sure we have continued general improvement in the labor market in the context of price stability. In the 

community development work that we do inside the Fed, we are 

quite focused on what we can do to aid low- and moderate-income 

communities and trying to identify and promote programs that 

seem to work. 

In my travels, I have visited a number of workforce development 

programs that I think are helpful in trying to match unemployed 

African-American and other minorities with available jobs. Job 

openings are at a record level and often programs that link-up 

workers and jobs and sometimes there is a need for workforce 

training. 

We have done work and tried to promote best practices in this 

area and credit availability more generally to low- and moderateincome— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Chair Yellen, for being here today. 

I appreciate that you have a hard job, and I wanted to ask you 

a couple of questions. You just said to the gentleman from Minnesota that private investment is lacking. And it is clear that you 

have reduced the interest rates in the economy, which is one factor 

when people choose to make an investment. 

But at the same time it appears that the increasing regulatory 

requirements that are passed on to consumers through banks, including a capital surcharge on bigger financial firms that is nearly 

double the international average, it is 4.5 percent versus 21⁄2 percent, a supplemental leverage ratio that is double, 6 percent versus 

3 percent, a liquidity-coverage ratio that is more restrictive and 

44 

punishes certain asset classes and a total loss-absorbing capital requirement that doesn’t consider things like market making to get 

capital in the economy. 

It just seems like even though you have reduced interest rates 

with your monetary policy, your regulatory policies are increasing 

costs and therefore decreasing folks’ ability to make private investment and also doing it at such a level higher than the rest of the 

world, it just makes America a less attractive place to place jobs, 

financial service jobs and other jobs. And I know you have commented that you want to try to take a look at all that and I really 

appreciate your willingness to take a look at it. 

I know the European Commission just did a call for evidence to 

review the ways that their financial regulations are actually working and recalibrate the rules to support both liquidity and markets, 

economic growth and lending. Do you have any plans to do something similar, given that our regulations are so far out of whack 

with rest of the international community? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I won’t comment on tax policy, but our regulations 

with respect to banking organizations are not really out of line 

with international standards. We have worked jointly with other 

countries to try to maintain a level playing field and to raise standards in tandem. We have really improved the safety and soundness 

of the banking system. We have a banking system that is extending lots of credit. Credit is readily available to most corporations. 

Loans have been growing and banks are eager to make loans. They 

are priced at low interest rates given this environment, so— 

Mr. STIVERS. But clearly they are not borrowing, so interest rates 

aren’t doing enough. That is kind of to my point. I guess you didn’t 

answer my question. Are you going to be opening up the regulations for comments the way the European regulators have or not, 

because you have said you will, but I have not seen anything on 

it. Will that happen, or not? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are currently going through the EGRPRA process and looking at our regulations. 

Mr. STIVERS. Okay. I do want to compliment Governor Tarullo 

for his comments in The Wall Street Journal recently that acknowledged that small and medium-sized banks do not present the same 

systemic risk and therefore he is going to try and reduce their compliance cost. 

Those are the kind of things I am talking about and they are 

great to see in The Wall Street Journal, I would love to see them 

happen. So, I want to compliment him on his willingness to say he 

is going to do that and I just want to encourage you to encourage 

that to happen. 

Because the Office of Financial Research, which is charged with 

doing the research on systemic risk, did a study a year ago that 

showed the systemic risk of all the institutions. The six largest institutions have an overwhelming majority of the risk in the entire 

financial system, and I think we should concentrate our previous 

regulatory capital on those that generate the biggest risk for our 

system and relieve the folks who don’t generate risk from things 

that don’t want sense. 

And so I was really pleased to see Governor Tarullo’s comments, 

but I would urge you to actually implement those. 

45 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am very supportive of the things that he said. We 

are focused on it. I agree that we want to do everything we can to 

eliminate burden for those community banks. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. And my time has almost expired, but 

I would urge you, and I know that this is our monetary policy hearing, and we have a regulatory hearing every 6 months as well, and 

I would urge you, and I know that Governor Tarullo is an acting 

regulatory supervisor, he has not been confirmed by the Senate, 

but I would hope you would bring him with you during that hearing, which is coming up. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired, 

but to ensure that the gentleman does not engage in an act of political negligence, by unanimous consent he will be granted an additional 10 seconds if he wishes to recognize Cleveland’s NBA championship. 

[laughter] 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Go, Cavs! I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 

Mr. Mulvaney. 

Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the chairman. 

Chair Yellen, thank you very much for being here. 

In your opening testimony, you said the following, ‘‘Another factor that supports taking a cautious approach in raising the Federal 

funds is that the Federal funds rate is still near its effective lower 

bound.’’ What is the effect of lower bound? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Well, I meant zero. 

Mr. MULVANEY. So no, we can put that to bed, correct? No negative rates in the Fed’s future, correct? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is not something we are contemplating. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions that deal with, while we are not going negative, still deal 

with rates staying at or near zero for a long time. 

Other countries have seen their rates go negative, and obviously 

that has an impact on the value of the dollar, driving it up. You 

have taken a position previously that you thought that a strong 

dollar was ‘‘something of a drag or could be something of a drag 

on the economy.’’ 

So my question for you is this: As you make your decisions regarding rates, or even as you make your decisions regarding your 

guidance, what weight do you put on the fact that other countries 

are going negative, or are approaching zero? How does that factor 

into your decision-making? 

Mrs. YELLEN. The situation of other countries is important in our 

decision-making. To the extent their rates decline or lower than 

ours, it does tend to put upward pressure on the dollar, which is 

a drag. 

But to the extent that their policies are successful in promoting 

stronger growth in those countries, then that boosts the demand for 

exports, so we need to take both aspects of it into account. And 

generally, it may differ from situation to situation, but when countries take steps, including monetary policy steps to support deVerDate Nov 24 2008 19:36 Feb 09, 2018 Jkt 025848 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\25848.TXT TERI
46 

mand, domestic demands in their own countries, it has these mixed 

effects on our outlook. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Nevertheless, we assess it and take it into account 

in setting our own policy. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Another issue regarding long-term at or nearzero rates, in 2011 this body estimated that our interest payments 

this year, actually next year, would be about $600 billion. The real 

number next year will about $300 billion, even though the actual 

debt today is greater than we thought it would have been 5 or 6 

years ago. 

What weight, what consideration, what pressure do you feel, if 

any, to maintain low interest rates in order to keep the government’s borrowing costs low? We all know what could happen if interest rates were to spike, the interest cost to the Nation would go 

up dramatically, possibly causing a fiscal crisis. Do you factor that 

into your decision-making on setting your rates or setting your 

guidance? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We do not factor that into our decision-making. 

That is an important reason why most countries have chosen to 

have their central banks have independence in making monetary 

policy, because when financing the government becomes the focus 

of monetary policy, inflation can rise to highly undesirable levels. 

The Congress told us to focus on maximum employment and price 

stability and that is what we are doing and will continue to do. 

Mr. MULVANEY. So it is fair to say, and I am sorry to cut you 

off, but you know how we deal with time, it is fair to say that if 

your dual mandate required you otherwise to raise rates, you 

would do that, even if it were to create difficulties on a fiscal standpoint in terms of paying our Nation’s debt? 

Mrs. YELLEN. That is correct. That is Congress’ to consider. The 

CBO does projections for Congress that assume an outlook with rising short-term interest rates and long-term interest rates and that 

factors into the information that you get in deciding on specifics of 

politics— 

Mr. MULVANEY. Speaking of rising rates, Mr. Huizenga a while 

ago asked you a question about a rising interest rate environment 

and the impact that might have on your remittances to the Treasury and you had said that while it was certainly contemplatable 

that a rising interest rate environment could lead to net negative 

earnings at the Fed, that that, and I think your exact words were, 

‘‘could be a very nice situation because it would be indicative of 

strong growth.’’ 

The last time I remember in my lifetime having extraordinary 

high interest rates, the problem was it was no growth, which was 

in the late 1970s, that is accurate, right? 

We have had periods in this country’s recent history of high interest rates and low growth. And that would not be a very good situation to be in. 

Mrs. YELLEN. That would be a much less desirable situation. I 

did indicate that it is highly unlikely and would require a very unlikely set of circumstances. 

Mr. MULVANEY. But it is possible that a set of circumstances 

would arise where your net earnings would go zero or negative? 

47 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is possible. 

Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Pittenger. 

Mr. PITTENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, I would like to make a comment initially, a reference to my friend Mr. Heck from Washington, he stated that you 

played a most important key role in terms of our economy and the 

increasing of jobs. 

And after that you mentioned that we are allotting 14 million 

jobs through a very accommodating monetary policy. That comes 

out to about 160,000 jobs a month over an average around 90 

months during this Administration. 

The contrast I would bring to you is that we had, in the 1970s, 

20 percent interest rates, high inflation, high unemployment, and 

gas lines, as you recall. And the regulatory burden was significantly reduced, the tax burden was reduced, and in 2 years we 

were creating 300,000 and 400,000 and 500,000 jobs a month, 1 

month a million jobs. 

Don’t you see that the clear contrast in terms of the regulatory 

burden that has been put on in our economy today and how that 

has not achieved the desired impact that these good folks have 

come to want? And there was a concern, I see their green shirts, 

I see their expressions of hope. 

And yet, the fact that the very policies that have been initiated 

seems to be counterproductive. That is my comment. 

Now, my question is related to, as you know, the comprehensive 

capital analysis and review known as CCAR is the Federal Reserves supervisory stress test for U.S. financial institutions. 

This month, Governor Tarullo announced the Fed will likely add 

the G-SIB surcharge as a component of future CCAR exercises. I 

am concerned that the Fed has failed to adequately consider if 

there is any benefit in adding this as a component. 

The CCAR currently contains two components that are unique to 

U.S. G-SIBs. First, only U.S. G-SIBs are required to assume a 

counterparty failure scenario. Secondly, the U.S. G-SIBs are required to assume an instantaneous global market shock. According 

to a clearinghouse analysis, both of these existing components already make up a significant portion the G-SIB surcharge calculation, including on issues of interconnectedness, complexity and 

cross-jurisdictional activity. 

Chair Yellen, doesn’t inclusion of the G-SIB surcharge on top of 

the current G-SIB-only components result in regulatory redundancy? Do you believe that this is in essence a double tax on these 

risks? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think Congress intended for systemically important firms to be more resilient than other firms and recognize that 

it is important that even in very adverse circumstances, those 

firms can go on serving the credit needs of the country, continue 

to lend. And in all the static requirements, the leverage ratio, static 

capital requirements, we have added an extra level, higher requirements for those firms. And I believe it is appropriate— 

48 

Mr. PITTENGER. Let me ask you this. What then is the net added 

benefit of adding the G-SIB surcharge as part of the CCAR exercise? Where do you see the benefit to that? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is a forward-looking exercise in which we look 

at how these firms would perform and survive in a highly adverse 

circumstance— 

Mr. PITTENGER. You don’t see it as an unnecessary added burden 

to these firms? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I think it is important that these firms be resilient. 

But let me just say that we are doing a 5-year review of the stress 

test in CCAR and will probably make other changes as well that 

could be partially offsetting in terms of capital levels. 

Mr. PITTENGER. One comment, there has been much said about 

community banks, the Federal Reserve Bank Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari made comments regarding his contact with the 

community bank in seeking to get a loan. 

And his comment was that he saw through that an extraordinary 

painful process. This was his own personal experience. He went on 

to say that these community banks suffer under the new regulatory 

regime. He added that the notion of let us solve too big to fail and 

relax regulations on those who are not systemically risk, that he 

supports that philosophy. 

I just want to emphasize again and some of this has already been 

said today, the real issue of addressing these community banks— 

I served on a community bank board for a decade and to date there 

are no additional community banks that are being formed because 

they don’t see that market capability, they don’t see their ability 

to support the requirements of the regulatory burden, but I would 

just emphasize that need to you. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. 

Maloney, the ranking member of our Capital Markets Subcommittee. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, when you were here in February, I asked you 

whether the decline in inflation expectations to historically low levels had caused you to rethink the inflation projections. And you 

said that it is something that you are, and I quote, ‘‘evaluating 

closely.’’ 

Since February, however, inflation expectations have fallen even 

further. Why do you think inflation expectations have continued to 

decline? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Some measures have declined and others have not. 

Survey measures like the Michigan survey of households have declined. In professional forecaster surveys, we don’t see a decline. 

I’m not sure why, we are focused on that, but the decline we 

have seen in energy prices going back some time may be influencing household’s perceptions. We have also seen declines since I 

was here last, in what is called inflation compensation, which is 

market-based measures of the extra yield that investors require to 

hold longer-dated Treasury nominal securities over tips. 

And that is not a pure measure of inflation expectations. I think 

perceptions of inflation risk and the value given the global risks 

that investors attach to Treasuries as a safe haven may be playing 

49 

a role. We watch this carefully because it can feed into actual price 

setting, but core inflation is now running about 1.6 percent over 

the last 12 months. It has moved up some. Headline inflation is 

moving up as oil prices have come up some and stabilized and as 

the dollar has stabilized, and of course, we need to keep track of 

this. It is a risk. But inflation is behaving largely as I would have 

anticipated. 

Mrs. MALONEY. How long do we have to go without an increase 

in inflation expectations for you to reconsider your plan to gradually increase interest rates? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We are watching inflation and inflation expectations. As I said, in spite of some of these measures declining further, actual inflation is moving up and roughly in the manner we 

expected and we are also watching the labor market as the labor 

market tightens and we see pressures develop there. 

We certainly are contemplating some further increases in shortterm rates if things continue as we expect. We want to make sure, 

we want to get inflation back to 2 percent, that is our objective, we 

are committed to that, but we want to make sure that inflation 

doesn’t rise to the point where we compromise price stability either. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. I am very concerned about the recent cybersecurity breaches involving SWIFT in which hackers successfully stole foreign banks’ SWIFT credentials and then initiated 

fraudulent fund transfers from these foreign banks. 

And as you know, I sent you, the Fed, and the OCC a letter last 

month asking what your agencies are planning to do in response 

to these truly unprecedented attacks. Can you give us an update 

on the banking regulators’ response to these attacks? Are you concerned that these cyberattacks could undermine confidence in the 

international payments system? 

And even though the hackers have not successfully stolen the 

SWIFT credentials of a U.S. bank, what effect could these attacks 

have on the U.S. banking system? It certainly rattled me that this 

happened. 

And as you know, the Federal Reserve is one of the 10 central 

banks that collectively oversees SWIFT. What has the Fed done in 

its capacity as a regulator of SWIFT to respond to these attacks? 

I must tell you, if I go to a foreign country that I am not expected 

to be in, my bank stops my transaction until I tell them it is okay. 

It is, to me, quite unbelievable that such a large amount of millions 

of dollars could be transferred to sites, including a casino in the 

Philippines. I think this is a threat to the U.S. banking system. 

Mrs. YELLEN. So, let me just say, the New York Fed systems 

weren’t compromised, but they are looking at their processes, looking at what is best practices, looking at the possibility of enhanced 

monitoring for certain kinds of transactions. 

We expect the institutions we supervise to make sure that they 

comply with procedures to control access to critical payment services and to review and ensure that they are meeting security requirements. We do participate in an oversight arrangement for 

SWIFT run by the— 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentlelady from New 

York has expired. 

50 

The Chair wishes to advise Members that in order to accommodate the witness’ schedule, the Chair intends to recognize three 

more Members. Currently, the queue would be Mr. Barr, Mr. 

Rothfus, and Mr. Williams. 

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr is recognized. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back to the committee, Chair Yellen. 

New York Fed Bank President William Dudley recently acknowledged a link between post-crisis regulations and liquidity problems 

in Treasuries, corporate bonds, and asset-backed securities. Specifically, he stated that capital liquidity requirements for the largest 

securities dealers, which have been raised significantly since the financial crisis, have adversely impacted market liquidity. 

These regulatory changes have affected the profitability of dealer 

intermediation activities and consequently the provision of market 

liquidity. Do you agree that market liquidity has declined since the 

implementation of these post-crisis regulations? 

Mrs. YELLEN. It is really difficult to tell because by many measures, market liquidity remains quite adequate and hasn’t deteriorated, but we certainly hear and have seen some evidence that 

under stress, the liquidity may disappear. 

And there are a bunch of different factors that we are looking at 

that may be relevant to that. Regulations are on the list. I am not 

precluding a role there, but there are changes in business models. 

High-frequency trading has become very dominant in the Treasury 

market. 

Mr. BARR. Let me just interject right there. Do you agree with 

your colleague, Mr. Dudley, that Volcker, risk retention, TLAC, 

some of the supplemental ratio and some of these other requirements have decreased trade sizes, have resulted in fewer active 

trading participant participants, there is a transfer of market making activities out of highly regulated banks and into the less regulated shadow banking sector which has less capacity to act as a liquidity provider? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I didn’t know that he said that. That’s a long list. 

Mr. BARR. I got a little more specific than he did. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Okay. 

Mr. BARR. But that is really what is happening according to a 

lot of the market participants. 

Mrs. YELLEN. You put a lot of things on the list that I am not 

aware of any research suggests are in any way relevant to this phenomenon. I am not aware of research that documents what the role 

is of any specific regulation, but it is something we will look at. 

We are looking at— 

Mr. BARR. Let me follow up on a question, a specific question 

about this issue that I asked you in February. 

I asked you how the Fed was reviewing and tailoring the fundamental review of the trading book for the domestic market. That 

is a rule that increases capital held against securitization exposures in the bank trading book by up to 5 times the amount already required under Basel III. And one industry study suggests 

that the trading of U.S. asset-backed securities would become uneconomical if the rule is not tailored to the U.S. marketplace. 

51 

That is a really big deal, Chair Yellen, because if it is uneconomical to act as a market maker for commercial mortgage-backed 

securities, or residential mortgage-backed securities, auto loans, 

credit cards, collateralized loan obligations, and if banks pull out 

of the ABS marketplace, that is a $1.6 billion source of consumer 

lending. That is 30 percent of all lending to U.S. consumers. So 

how is that going? You indicated to me 4 months ago that you were 

taking a look at that. How is that going? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I need to get back to you with further details, and 

I will do that. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you for doing that. We need you to take a look 

at it. Tailoring is very important. 

And kind of to conclude, in your prepared remarks, you indicated 

that business investment was surprisingly weak. Maybe the reason 

why the Fed is surprised and continued to miss on forecasts, and 

the Fed, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out estimated 2.4 percent growth in December, that had fallen to 2.2 percent by March, 

this month it was down to 2 percent, and it follows the Federal Reserve’s consistent record of forecasting error from a standpoint of 

predicting stronger growth than is actually occurring. 

Maybe the reason why the Fed is missing out on these forecasts 

is that you continue to view fiscal policy as a ‘‘small positive’’ when 

it is obvious to everybody in the private economy that over-regulation is producing illiquidity. It is drying up access to capital. You 

are very cognizant of keeping interest rates low, you are putting off 

raising rates, it seems to me contradictory to the lack of attention 

that the Fed seems to be giving to over-regulation as an impediment to economic recovery. 

I would like you to comment on that. 

Mrs. YELLEN. Growth has been disappointing. I am not sure of 

the reason. But our forecasts of the unemployment rate and 

progress in the labor market have been pretty close. And we have 

seen a lot of job creation, firms that are doing relatively little investing are doing a lot of hiring. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Rothfus. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chair Yellen, my colleague Mr. Foster touched on the issue with 

custody banks. I just want to follow up a little bit. I asked you previously about custody banks and their ability to accept deposits because of the supplementary leverage ratio rule. I would like to follow up by asking, is the Fed studying or analyzing how the supplementary leverage rule is impacting the custody banks’ ability to accept deposits? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We will look at that. I am aware of concerns 

around that. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. There is no current study that you are going to do, 

or you are planning on doing, but you are not studying it today? 

Mrs. YELLEN. We don’t have a study underway, but you are talking about a handful of banks and the impact this has on them. And 

we are aware of the concerns around this, and we will look at it. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. If a bank is charging for deposits, that is the 

equivalent of a negative interest rate, would you agree with that? 

52 

Mrs. YELLEN. For that bank for that class. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. If custody banks are unwilling or unable to take 

client cash, where would the cash go? Any idea where a customer 

might park that cash? 

Mrs. YELLEN. They might put it in other banks that are less constrained or in money market funds. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Purchase Treasuries? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Or do other things, yes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. As you know, both the proposed net stable funding 

ratio rule and the liquidity coverage ratio rule use the same thresholds to determine whether and to what extent those rules apply to 

financial institutions. Specifically, any institution with more than 

$250 billion in assets is subject to the full version of the rules. 

In prior testimony, though, you indicated that the full version of 

these rules should apply to only those that are internationally active. Yet, in defining the term, you indicated that institution could 

be considered as such merely if it has more than $250 billion in 

total assets, even if it has no or limited foreign activities. Could 

you explain why a bank should be considered internationally active 

even if it has no or very limited foreign activities? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I am not sure exactly what firms you are referring 

to. I don’t have enough detail on that to be able to tell you, to answer that. I will get back to you on it. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Yes, I would appreciate it. We will follow up with 

you. 

Again, any firm with more than $250 billion being somehow 

deemed to be internationally active, that is what we would be curious to learn. 

You talked about headwinds the last time you were here, 

headwinds to the economy, headwinds today. The Fed is not operating in a vacuum. There has been discussion about any number 

of issues that are going out there. You would agree that low interest rates themselves are not a headwind, right? 

Mrs. YELLEN. No. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. And in fact, with low interest rates, you would expect much more robust economic growth. 

Mrs. YELLEN. That is correct. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. You testified you expect the headwinds to ‘‘slowly 

fade over time.’’ 

I contend those headwinds, like I did last time, are regulatory 

and we had a discussion here today about some of the regulatory 

impact. A number of Members have raised this issue because we 

are hearing it from our constituents back home, small businesses. 

So I contend again it is the regulatory and fiscal policies that 

this Administration has pursued, which is not the vacuum, again, 

the Fed is not operating in a vacuum. We have higher taxes, the 

Affordable Care Act, EPA, Dodd-Frank regulations that I contend 

are missing the mark because Dodd-Frank itself missed the mark. 

Would you consider any of these regulations or fiscal policies to be 

headwinds to the economy? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I would say that productivity growth and growth 

in the economy’s capacity to supply goods and services has been 

pretty meager. And we are really not sure what the cause is. I 

53 

would point out that it is a global phenomenon. We are seeing this 

in many parts of the world. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. But you also see other countries imposing other 

regulations on their economies as well. 

Mrs. YELLEN. The reasons may not all be the same in different 

countries. I don’t think we really have a very good handle on it. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. I am concerned because you talk about the 

headwinds, yet you are not diagnosing the full scope of what the 

headwinds are. 

And as we look at the performance of this economy, which is 

sputtering, and looking at the constituents I talk to have not seen 

raises and the small businesses who are not accessing capital. I 

think we have to take a comprehensive look at what those 

headwinds truly are. I would encourage you to do that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair is going to recognize now the last Member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, who is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Chair Yellen, thank you for being here. 

I am from Texas. I am a small-business owner, and I have been 

for 44 years. I appreciate your testimony. 

Last July, we had a chance to chat about community-based financial institutions. I further asked you, when I go back home, 

what should I tell the community bankers, the credit unions who 

feel they are being penalized, even targeted, for the financial collapse of our economy? 

What you said was that you are trying to do everything you can 

to relieve burdens on community banks that have been through 

very difficult times. 

Now, Madam Chair, 1 year later, community-based financial institutions are still feeling the pain, I can tell you, and most of them 

don’t see any relief in sight. 

Recent research from the Mercatus Center shows that the DoddFrank Act creates more regulatory restrictions than do all other 

regulations of the current Administration combined, over 27,000 restrictions for all laws passed through 2014. So clearly, someone is 

not getting the message. 

So, in your experience, is it more difficult for a small institution 

to comply with new regulatory mandates than it is for a larger institution? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Well, very small institutions, certainly we would 

recognize there are burdens involved. But we have also tried to tailor our regulations so that there is less burden and many fewer 

rules apply to smaller institutions. 

There has been an increase in the capital standards that apply 

to those institutions, but most of the things we have discussed 

today, stress tests, TLAC, other things, liquidity regulations, don’t 

apply to those institutions at all. And as I said, we have tried to 

make many efforts and will continue looking for ways to simplify 

the regulatory regime and the capital regime for those institutions. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Has the number of regulatory changes negatively 

affected the community financial institutions’ ability, do you think, 

54 

to offer products and services to consumers more than it has affected larger institutions? 

Mrs. YELLEN. I don’t know that it has affected smaller institutions more than larger institutions. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would submit that it has. I wish you would take 

a look at it, because to be honest I don’t really know how you start 

a business—like I said, I am a business person—in this economic 

environment. I don’t know how people would get started. I don’t 

know how a new business even secures capital or is able to remain 

profitable. 

One thing you said earlier was that corporations can secure credit. They can secure capital. But I am a Main Street person, and I 

can tell you I don’t see that opportunity being able to get capital 

and start a business right now with Main Street. 

So let me just close by saying this, Madam Chair. I ask these 

questions because the Federal Reserve is responsible for the regulatory oversight of about 5,000 bank holding companies, 850 depository institutions that are State-chartered members of the Fed. I 

personally have heard from banks in my district that the disproportionate impact of the ever-mounting regulatory burden is contributing to increased industry consolidation. 

So, my question would be, would you please explain the negative 

consequences that result from consolidation and the effects of consolidation on the local and national economy? 

Mrs. YELLEN. Community banks are very important in supplying 

the kinds of services to their communities that may not be readily 

available from larger institutions. And I certainly agree that it is 

important that they remain healthy and vibrant and able to thrive 

and contribute to the growth of their communities. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Reducing regulations would help that. So, please 

take a look at it. Main Street America is hurting. There is a difference between Main Street and Wall Street. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HENSARLING. The gentleman yields back. 

I wish to thank Chair Yellen for her testimony today. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this witness, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to this witnesses and to place her responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 22, 2016 

56 


25848.001
57 


25848.002
58 


25848.003
59 


25848.004
60 


25848.005
61 


25848.006
62 


25848.007
63 


25848.008
64 


25848.009
65 


25848.010
66 


25848.011
67 


25848.012
68 


25848.013
69 


25848.014
70 


25848.015
71 


25848.016
72 


25848.017
73 


25848.018
74 


25848.019
75 


25848.020
76 


25848.021
77 


25848.022
78 


25848.023
79 


25848.024
80 


25848.025
81 


25848.026
82 


25848.027
83 


25848.028
84 


25848.029
85 


25848.030
86 


25848.031
87 


25848.032
88 


25848.033
89 


25848.034
90 


25848.035
91 


25848.036
92 


25848.037
93 


25848.038
94 


25848.039
95 


25848.040
96 


25848.041
97 


25848.042
98 


25848.043
99 


25848.044
100 


25848.045
101 


25848.046
102 


25848.047
103 


25848.048
104 


25848.049
105 


25848.050
106 


25848.051
107 


25848.052
108 


25848.053
109 


25848.054
110 


25848.055
111 


25848.056
112 


25848.057
113 


25848.058
114 


25848.059
115 


25848.060
116 


25848.061
117 


25848.062
118 


25848.063
119 


25848.064
120 


25848.065
121 


25848.066
122 


25848.067
123 


25848.068
124 


25848.069
125 


25848.070
126 


25848.071
127 


25848.072
128 


25848.073
129 


25848.074
130 


25848.075
131 


25848.076
132 


25848.077
133 


25848.078
134 


25848.079
135 


25848.080
136 


25848.081