this is an area that you're interested in and as the fsoc dealing with this? we hear daily that if it's not run regulation or two it's the continuous waste of regulation is dragging down particularly community banks and regional banks. >> conquer banks. >> conker soman i will tell you in general that's an area of great concern to me. i don't have the time yet. i'm very much committed to make in a full implementation of dodd-frank happen in this quick and -- i will say when i was omb director we did for the first time look back in the overall regulatory system to ask agencies what you have on the books that could be eliminated and we eliminated a whole bunch of regulations across the government. i think it's an exercise that we should not just move forwards but we have to move backwards and forwards both and i hope we can get dodd-frank in place and have the ability to do that. getting dodd-frank implemented is a fair amount of work and getting it done quickly is -- >> i hope the next time you come before the committee viewed well because i'm going to ask you a

>> fsoc is unique. it has some areas of direct responsibility but mostly it is a coordinating role and it is to pull together the different actors in our complicated financial regulatory system to act in a decisive way and coordinated way. i think it is important. if you have five regulators going off in five different directions and it could cause massive confusion. i think there is analytic work being done and shared that is very helpful and i hope as chair i will play the role and help drive the process toward sensible decision-making in a timely manner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. lew. one of the problems being in the lower part of the totem, a lot of the questions have been asked. let me clean up some questions that were brought up in my mind. in regards to the investigation -- >> i apologize, cannot hear you because of the door. >> there we go. one of the questions i hope this afternoon wh

one on the irs and one on fsoc. you indicated that the inspector general's finding indicated that there was not a political motivation to irs activity. >> no political pressure was brought to bear. >> i had to step out for a few moments to go down to the finance committee and i had an opportunity to ask some questions of the inspector general and a few very important things came out. he made it clear that the report does not make a finding that there was no political pressure or political motivation. it was that they were not able to find it. i asked what they looked into. they said they asked irs employees who they interrogated, were interviewed, whether they had a political motivation. none of them admitted to having such. i asked them if they were under oath. they had taken no informational testimony under oath and it was his opinion that he thought further investigation was necessary. it seems to me at this point, what we have is a coalition of targeting certain politically group to individuals or organizations.

>> fsoc is unique.has some areas of direct responsibility but mostly it is a coordinating role and it is to pull together the different actors in our complicated financial regulatory system to act in a decisive way and coordinated way. i think that is very important. if you have five regulators going in five different directions, it could cause mass of concrete -- confusion and a large burden. there is a large burden of work being shared and i hope that i will play the role to drive the process toward sensible decision making in a timely manner. >> i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> q. -- thank you. one of the problems with being on the lower part of the totem pole is a wind up with the questions already being passed. let me go through some things to clean up couple of questions. one thing with regards to the investigation going on -- because ofear you the door. >> there we go. one of the questions that when you talk to you new commissioner this afternoon and discu

the fsoc does not keep transcripts.on't even think they keep minutes of their staff meetings or subcommittee meetings. the committee meetings is where most of the work is done. would you commit to transcribing those minutes -- i mean transcribing those proceedings and keeping minutes of those meetings? awaregress man, i am not of practices where meetings like that are normally transcribed. the challenge of working in complicated areas involve many, many meetings. i'm happy to follow up with you on concerns you have. you areu know, chairman, this is one of the most important committees or councils in response to financial crisis. i think it's important from a historic basis. >> congressional staff need to draft important legislation. there are minutes of those conversations. it's a complicated question. >> take a look at what the gao recommended. >> i will take a look. >> and secretary language that encourages transparency, and see if you cannot give us some transparency -- some assurances. >> you have been questioned ab

it is a more systemic and intensive approach and he describes a holistic approach driven by the fsocupported by expanded research and data collection often undertaken with u.s. financial regulatory agencies. he says the approach is providing important information to the regulatory community. the chairman will take questions at the end of his remarks and it is not a monetary policy speech, guys, but the structure of banking in this country is a hot topic and an important issue. >> and you get to the q and a. who knows what you will get then, here is the chairman of the federal reserve. >> thank you, it's good to be back at the bank structure meeting which i have -- we are going to have some kind of count of who has attended the most of these, but we don't have to do that this morning. >> we are now more than four years beyond the most intense phase of the financial crisis, but its legacy remains. our economy is not yet fully recovered the jobs lost in the recession that accompanied the financial collapse, and our financial system, despite significant healing over the past four or five

fsoc itself continues to work on wee non bank designation. expect additional action on the market funds and the tri party repo market and other proposals and ensured no firm is too big to fail. the three-year anniversary of washing before becoming law and a five-year anniversary of the financial crisis are fast approaching. they must be finalized soon so congress can assess whether it is necessary to do more. i look forward to hearing your testimony and learning what steps you are taking as fsoc's chair to strengthen the financial stability. with that, i will turn to ranking member crepo for his opening statement. >> thank you. i also want to extend my condolences to the families of those who were killed yesterday as a result of the devastating tornadoes in oklahoma. all of us keep the people of oklahoma and our hearts and prayers. today secretary lew comes before the committee to testify. the secretary of the treasury wears many hats. he is responsible for formulating and recommending a number of domestic tax policies for the ministration. h

i would like to ask a few questions about your role as chair of the fsoc. the first one is, we hear a lot -- we hear it in the committee and from folks on the other side of the aisle and from people who come in the mud that too big to fail still exist. what would you tell folks who say that? think thesman, i challenge we have is to be able to get to the end of the implementation of dodd-frank and answer the question by saying too big to fail is over. that is what the policy of dodd- frank, our policy in implementing dodd-frank. we are not yet at the finish line. take aenge -- if you snapshot today and look ahead. if you look at the debate that has taken place over the last number of months, there are different approaches to what additional actions are needed. there is authority in dodd- frank to turn the number of dials to different levels in terms of capital requirements, leverage requirements and until that process is complete it will be a little challenging to answer it in the present tense. i certainly hope and intend the answer to be too big to fail is

so we weren't even eligible to be considered, technically, by fsoc.re assuming that they're looking at us right now closely. >> tell me about the rules, if you are deemed systemically important financial institution. i realize much of this has not been written yet, but what kind of changes would you be looking at? more capital? what are the things that you're going to have to change, if, in fact, you are deemed a sify? >> if we are deemed a sify, the federal reserve will become our financial supervisor. and they'll be writing rules, so will those rules be appropriate for the bank centric type of approach? the question being, will those capital rules really inhibit us from offering the kinds of products and services to our customers that they rely upon for the financial security? >> is there a chance that you are deemed systemic important financial institution or sifi, and then you have to do asset sales? do you have to change what the company laooks like? >> until we see the rules, we don't know, but we're prepared for most anything. and if the rules

you are the chair of fsoc, and the question is this: what metrics is fsoc using to determine which nonbankompanies are designated systemically risky? more me it seems like -- for me it seems like a very important question because those entities that are going to be hugely impacted by this designation should know where the lines are. and so i'd just like to pose to you again what those metrics are and whether you think it's important for those metrics to be public. >> well, senator, the general approach is something that is public. we're looking at whether or not there's a risk to the financial system, and that really amounts to a question of a combination of factors including what the nature of the institution is, the size, the scope, the transmission mechanisms that would indicate whether or not if there were a financial problem with those firms, there would be contagion in other parts of the financial system. the individual analyses that are going on are matters that are being discussed with the companies, but we haven't disclosed a public list of the companies, and i don't think that wo

i would like to ask a few questions about your role as chair of the fsoc. the first one is, we hear a lot -- we hear it in the committee and from folks on the other side of the aisle and from people who come in, that too big to fail still exists. what would you tell folks who say that? >> congressman, i think the challenge we have is to be able to get to the end of the implementation of dodd-frank and then answer the question by saying too big to fail is over. that is what the policy of dodd-frank, our policy in implementing dodd-frank. we are not yet at the finish line. there is a challenge -- if you take a snapshot today and look ahead. if you look at the debate that has taken place over the last number of months, there are different approaches to what additional actions are needed. there is authority in dodd-frank to turn a number of dials to different levels in terms of capital requirements, leverage requirements, and until that process is complete it will be a little challenging to answer it in the present tense. i certainly hope and intend the answer

see the fsoc taking action about, that's on the regard as a -- as something that's monitored?of areas of systematic risks. we are going to keep our eye vigilantly on all those areas of systematic risk. you know, some of them are emerging areas. this year cyber threats were one of the areas of risk we identified. i think if you compare now to a few years ago, there's a much higher level of awareness at the treasury secretary finance minister level, at the head of state level. it's something we just have to be vigilant we keep our eye on what are the risks of today and tomorrow. >> the dow at 15,000, unemployment, though, still high at 7.5%. is there a disconnect between main street and wall street? >> the core fundamentals of our economy have shown over the last number of quarters and months that we're moving in the right direction. the economy is growing. we're creating jobs. it is not fast enough. we have tried to be very clear that while growth is -- it's encouraging, it's not sufficient. our policies are aimed at what can we do to grow the economy more and create more jobs.

you are the share of fsoc. which nonbank companies are designated and systemic a risky? for me it seems that important question because those entities that are going to be hugely impacted by the designation should know where the line of fire. and so i would like to pose again with his metrics are and what do you think it is important for metrics to the public. >> was sanner, the general approach is something that is public. we are looking at whether there is a risk to the financial system and that really amounts to a question of combination of factors, including what the nature of the institution is size, scope, transition mechanisms that indicate if there were a financial problem with those systems. the individual analyses going on our matters being discussed with companies, but we haven't disclosed a public list of companies and i don't think i would be appropriate unless and until designations are made after which point in time companies have the ability to exercise any concerns they have in their review of those regulations -- of those actions. there is going to be e

following up on one thing of concern to me regarding fsoc. your organization has the responsibility to respond to emerging threats to the stability of the united states financial system. i fail to see in the report recommendations on things that happened to actually minimize those threats or find a way in the future. the london whale, i fail to see where they promulgated new rules. the qe program, nothing that ever even mentions that. at what point are you going to support winding it down? are you going to continue to support the quantitative easing program? my concern is, in response to some of the questions, you said it needs time. mr. secretary, it is kind of like a doctor waiting for the cancer to take over the patient. if we don't start something pretty soon on some of these things, it's not going to happen at all. >> briefly, mr. secretary. >> i think if you look at the report and the recommendations, it identifies the areas that fsoc believes of greatest risk. it lays out in the next year things we should be looking at and it should be

what metric is fsoc using to determine which nonbank companies are designated systemically risky? for me it seems like a very important question because those entities are going to be hugely impacted by the designation to know where the lines are. i would like to show the metrics are and whether you think it is important for those to be public. >> the general amendment approach is something that is public and we are looking at whether or not there is a risk to the financial system and that really amounts to a question of a combination of factors including with the nature of the institution is and the size and scope and transition mechanisms that would indicate whether or not if there were a financial problem they would be in other parts of the financial system analysis that is going on our matters being discussed with the companies but we haven't disclosed the public list to the companies, and i don't think that would be appropriate unless and until the designations are made. after which point in time they would have the ability to exercise any concerns they have in view of those