led fsoc to demint systemically important. they can do nothing to find their a systemic risk. more importantly when republican numbers and ask questions of you had fsoc in the past answers receive have always been bland designed to give us the impression of responsiveness without actually ever answering any of our questions, mr. secretary. in fact, this committee ask you specifically last month for all the documents and all the communication between you, your department, and fsb. your promise to supply us with documents. we have absolutely nothing from the when you promise us that you would supply us with that affirmation. mr. secretary, stonewalling by you and this department must not. we have to get real answers from u.s. treasury, and i hope that today with us that begins. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. a chair now recognizes that to come in from colorado for a minute and a half. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, it is good to see you here. want to thank you and the administration. says the president took o

before i was chair of fsoc. it is an issue that was again at the heart of a financial crisis in '08, and there was i think an urgency that was felled by fsoc to underscore that more action on that and on other issues that relate to the air and shadow banking was important. the sec has a direct regulatory authority. they are working on our will and i'm hopeful they will complete the rule this summer. >> mr. lew, thank you so much. i don't have much time but i do think the sec did push back on aspects of money markets. finally i guess you've heard the complaint that prior to designation, which is a big deal if you'r your designated a sifis is not an opportune at all to present their case to the full board of principles of the fsoc. or even to directly address the file information charges that are being presented to justify the decision. this seems to be just a little bit contrary to what we know as of due process. i just want to know what your response to that is. >> that's not correct. the nickel back to the mone

they are directly affected by fsoc have little idea why fsoc makes the decisions it does.congressman i can be briefed on the most sensitive intelligence in the national security but i'm not allowed to even sit quietly and listen in on the meeting. companies that are designated have only been paid to come the -- the vague knowledge so they can do nothing to reduce their own systemic risk. when republican members ask questions they have been designed to give the responsiveness without actually ever answering any of our questions, mr. secretary. in fact the committee asked you specifically for all of the documents and communications between you com, your departmend fsb and i have everything that you supplied us with right here in this box in response to your promise to supply us with all of those documents. we got absolutely nothing from you when you promised us he would supply us with that information. the stonewalling by you and the department must stop. we have to get answers from you and treasury and i hope today the process begins. >> the chair man recognizes the gentlem

, fsoc promoted a diversion.ouldn't regulating the industry be left to the sec who has the needed expertisesome is. >> well, the sec, as i mentioned earlier, is in the process of considering a rulemaking with regard to money market funds, and i certainly hope that they reach a conclusion that's one that provides the kind of oversight of -- >> should that be within the discretion of the sec and not the fsoc? >> well, the fsoc reached a conclusion with the sec being very much a part of the process that this was an important area to address. the fsoc made recommendations, now the sec has a rulemaking. and i'll also add that in the process of going through the asset manager review, the sec is fully a part of that process. they review drafts of the ofr study, they are part of the decision that fsoc will make because the chair is a voting member of fsoc and the staff work on all the preparation to it. >> i'd like to ask a question about getting back to too big to fail and whether it's been ended. you know, the presiden

some have krilt sized the fsoc's designation's process has been opaque. >> is the fsoc aprobe rattly balancing the need for transparency gerns the need to protect sensitive markets? and supervised information? this is an issue i'd like to get behind us and deal with it in ways that would allow fsoc to do itsd work. i'm hoping that you have not only given considerable thought to this, but to help us understand how we can better make sure that you can carry out your mission and not voo those that you are regular rating too. i don't want to spend all of my time on this because i want to get back to market sfszsing. >> congressman walters, you know, i think that the values of openness and transparency are very important to all of us. we have constructed a process in fsoc, which i blooechl respecteding and reflects those values. and it gives an enormous opportunity for companies to engage with fsoc without making public prematurely things that aren't -- would not be appropriate to be a public discussion. much of the discussion involves reviewing the sbrnl nfrgs that is the kind of supervi

fsoc's decision making process remains a black box. citizens whose livelihood are directly affected by fsoc, have little why why they make the decisions they do. i can be briefed on the most sensitive intelligence information. but i'm not allowed to sit quietly and listen in on fsoc meetings. they have only the vaguest notion of what deems them important. they can do nothing to reduce their own systemic risk. when republican members have asked questions of you and of fsoc in the past, the answers received have always been bland and evasive talking points, designed to give us the impre impression of responsiveness without answering any of our questions. this committee asked you specifically last month for all the documents and all the communications between you, your department and fsb. and i have everything that you supplied right here in >> we've to get real answers from you and your department. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thanks, mr. chair. mr. secretary, it's good

you ignore those presented by the shuttle regulatory system, of which fsoc is front and center.with the exception of agencies dealing in classified information related to national security, fsoc may very well be that nation's least transparent federal entity. the public cannot view their proceedings because two-thirds of them are conducted in private , executive sessions. when the minutes are produced, on average they weigh in at a mere five pages long with half of the pages devoted to demoralizing attendees names and resolutions considered. better markets the public interest groups that consist of the advocate for more regulation of our financial sector have stated, the fsoc proceedings make the politburo look open by comparison. no one in america even knows who they are, and the few open meetings they have they snap their fingers and it is over and they're are all scripted. they treat their information as it were state secrets. to begin to remedy this sad situation is one of the reasons this committee has ordered h.r. 4337, the fsoc transparency and accountability act is favor

i would say that the work of the fsoc is proceeding in a robust way, that it's an excellent device for actually discussing these risks, but ultimately you're right, i mean, in the sense that there will be individual regulators who have jurisdiction over particular areas of, you know, of the financial system, and it will be for them to determine, essentially, what reforms need to be put in place. >> is the sec moving fast enough? >> well, the sec is moving, we'll put it that way. [laughter] i don't know quite the pace at which it's moving. i know that they do take this issue also quite seriously. you'll remember that the fsoc did something in the mutual fund space called a 120 letter which, in essence, was a device by which the regulators talked about as a group, essentially, what risks they foresaw in this space and tasked the sec, so to speak, to come up with something that would be, in essence, responsive. >> all right. so our clock is red and has a bunch of zeros on it. >> right. we're going to have a few minutes now for q&a. questions from the audience, i have some on the ipad. any

with fsoc, the idea that every time something emerges, new product line emerges or some new institution emerges, you cannot go back and pass legislation every year or two. we are talking about a global marketplace. we care deeply about this. someone is going to lead on these issues around the world and if we didn't, someone else would. i want to play by someone else's rules. the united states want to lead on this matter. we are getting some compatibility. it is a harmonization of rulemaking in the european market particularly as well as here. the idea of pursuing that approach made tremendous sense to me as we went forward. so, again, my hope would be that what we have done was provide the ability to look over the horizon where you can watch product lines and respond to it in a timely fashion. it is amazing it took legislation to create it. it should have been occurring naturally. we had regulators meeting up periodically with each other and talking about what was occurring. it did become the crisis of september 2008. consumer protection -- to me was stunning in a way of the objections

you will remember that the fsoc did something in the mutual fund space called a 120 letter which, in essence, was a device by which the regulators talked about as a group essentially what risks they foresaw in this space, and hast the sec to come up with something that would be in essence responsive. >> all right. so our clock is red and has a bunch of zeros on it. >> we will have a few minutes for q&a. questions from the audience? >> my question goes back -- >> identifiers a. >> with levi strauss. question goes back to the growth agenda. the optimism about growth as you look into the future. what, in your view, can the government or treasury do to propel the growth going forward, you know, because growth has been slow and a need it which is a surprise to all of us. would love to hear your perspective. >> it's an excellent question, and i think we have as a society, you know come we've made collective investments in particular areas that actually make the u.s. a very attractive investment climate but also makes the u.s. a real powerhouse for economic growth and they fall into various