YLAN MUI: Today was the first reduction in asset purchases, and you just said that future reductions will likely occur in measured steps, but are not on a predetermined course. Can you tell us any more about the framework that you all plan to use to determine the -- the timing of those reductions? And previously you had said that you expect the program to end altogether by the middle of next year. Is that still a likely scenario?
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: Well, as I said, the steps that we take will be data-dependent. If we're making progress in terms of inflation and continued job gains, then I imagine we'll continue to do probably at each meeting a measured reduction. That would take us to late in the year, not -- necessarily not by the middle of the year.
If the economy slows for some reason or we are disappointed in the outcomes, we could -- we could skip a meeting or two. On the other side, if things really pick up, then of course we could go a bit faster. But my expectation is for similar moderate steps going forward throughout most of 2014.
STEVE LIESMAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you. When you say similar moderate steps going forward, is $10 billion an increment that people should anticipate? And is equal amounts of mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries also what one should anticipate? Finally, when you say well past the unemployment rate of 6.5 percent, why not pick a number? Why say "well past"? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: Sure. On the first issue of $10 billion, again, we say we're going to take further modest steps subsequently, so that would be the general range. But, again, I want to emphasize that we are going to be data-dependent. We could stop purchases if the economy disappoints; we could pick them up somewhat if the economy is stronger.
In terms of MBS versus Treasuries, we discussed that issue. I think that the general sense of the committee was that equal reductions or approximately equal reductions was the simpler way to do this. It obviously doesn't make a great deal of difference in the end to how much we hold, so that was going to be our -- our strategy.
On the issue of another number, the unemployment rate, let's talk first about the -- about the labor market condition. The unemployment rate is -- is a good indicator of the labor market. It's probably the best single indicator that we have. And so we were comfortable setting a 6.5 percent unemployment rate as the point at which we would begin to look at a more broad set of labor market indicators.
However, precisely because we don't want to look just at the unemployment rate, we want to -- once we get to 6.5 percent, we want to look at hiring, quits, vacancies, participation, long-term unemployment, et cetera, wages, we couldn't put it in terms of another unemployment rate level, specifically.