impossible to issue the kinds of dangerous products that were issued before. it has made our system safer. that's not the problem. the question is for people who are getting mortgages applying for mortgages that are straightforward, english-language document mortgages with fees and charges that are clear and cost that they can afford are the credit standards so tight that people who are creditworthy or not getting credit. we are very much of the view that people who are creditworthy should have access to credit and we are opposed to the idea that we should go back to loosening the rules to allow the kinds of mortgages that helps create the financial crisis. >> so do you believe that what the cfpb has been doing and the approach that they are taking is certainly the right approach and somehow that's going to help open up credit opportunities? what do we do about opening up access to credit? >> i think they have made a lot of important changes that reformed some of the basic problems. i think to the extent that the financial institutions are concerned that they want to be even more constrained than was intended it is sensible for agencies like fha and fh a.j. to try to clarify. >> the chair now recognizes atonement for michigan mr. hi singh air for minutes. >> verse i want to discuss international insurance and some of the trade negotiations the imf as we talked about in my opening statement. i want to start up with the insurance situation. coming out of the state legislature and familiar with the state regulatory-based oversight that we have there are states but in the latter half of 2014 we saw treasury representatives and federal reserve voted the international association of insurance supervisors to shut down the transparent process and eliminate the formation of these international insurance standards. accordingly how does treasury justify the fact that in international discussions it has undercut and not supported a state regulators even as they had requested formally oppositions to closing those meetings and their opposition to the one-size-fits-all global capital standards in math. how do you encourage transparency in these international meetings and negotiations? >> congressman i think that if you look at the review of insurance rules there has been a lot of give-and-take a lot of reviews from industry and state regulators and national voices. >> i don't see that now though. >> there is a lot of back-and-forth. >> but you don't deny that iai booted them out of the process. >> they are still very much taking comments from outside parties. >> taking, and is very different than being at the table in discussions are happening and my question is and i know this has come up repeatedly as you have appeared here what is the active role the treasury is taking when we are going into these negotiations and my suspicion is this is a longer conversation and i would love to have a written response from you in a timely fashion on this specifically because i think this is something in my committee monetary policy and trade and i want to dive deeper into. >> i'm happy to pursue it outside of the hearing in greater detail. >> and you will give me a written response in a timely fashion? >> i will answer any questions en masse. >> i'm mostly concerned about the time part. >> i would just say we do have history as you say of state regulation of the insurance industry and we also have to have ability to look at these issues nationally. we have tried to strike a balance where we have been respectful of the regulatory process but to international bodies speak with a firm voice. >> i understand. they certainly feel a bit cut out. as ttip negotiations continue it seems to me the u.s. position on financial services has been to negotiate on market access but refused to engage on the regulatory side. i understand the i understand that u.s. put forward a proposal and regulatory issues to u.s. negotiators. why does treasury refuse to engage on this topic? >> we have been very clear with their european counterparts that we think market access is an appropriate issue in a trade negotiation. we do not believe prudential standards should be subjected to trade processes or remedies. >> isn't there a way to discuss religion or proposals that doesn't undermine postcrisis? >> i think in the fsb and the g20 in the oecd a lot of international conversations where we try to reach high standards that are as harmonized as possible in a national responsibility. what i don't think is appropriate is to permit our prudential standards for example to be challenged in the trade context. >> going back to my first my first question doesn't sound like you've are engaging those people are going to be there trying to make sure working with our treasury. >> i have engaged in an ongoing basis. i met with laurie hill a month or so ago. >> in my remaining time i want to hit on the i. you agree is secretary kerry that there is no permanency to the united states line of credit at the i met in these resources are not permit but expiring in to quote them it has to be repaid within five years if it's not renewed? those comments of his were made more than five years ago. >> what i believe about the imf as we very much need to ratify the imf reforms so our commitment to the new arrangement can be converted into a capital contribution in a strengthened system that has the resources to deal with the next financial crisis. >> you don't believe we should deal to close down this line of credit? is a special line of credit that five years ago ago now secretary kerry had shepherded through endless touting saying in five years this is going to be repaid. >> i think we have made clear that the imf reforms are the best way to have a strong imf that has a leadership role we need for national security. >> that is a signal to both of us but i appreciate your commitment to get back to me in a timely manner. >> the time of the gentleman's has expired and the chairman recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts mr. lynch. >> welcome mr. secretary, happy st. patrick's day. nice try. let's go back to the issue that mr. huizenga base. as it stands now does this do anything to the voting weight of the e.u. with respect to united states? i now sometimes these can shift over time and i'm just concerned about whether or not we have in the government's respect the same way to end the same influence that we have today? >> congressman the thing about the imf reforms is that preserves the u.s. position and it provides for a reallocation of representation basically between europe and emerging economies. it was a difficult negotiation. it was critical to us to maintain the u.s. position in the imf and the reason it's so important to ratify the agreement is that we are the last country to step forward. we are the only country standing in the way of having imf reform become the policy of the imf. the impatience around the world is becoming extremely high. it is as if the united states said we recognized emerging countries need to have more voice but now we take this step even though it doesn't hurt the united states or the country. strengthens our position. it's critically important for leadership not just i met the more broadly for us to get this done. >> and you feel comfortable that -- i can understand if we were reluctant to engage in a deal where our loss was everyone else's gain. i totally understand taking the pro-american position on that but you are quite sure that we are not giving the store away? >> i have to say ronica we are being criticized on both sides by the countries they gain in the countries that lose standing in the way of reforms. >> let me go to the iis issue of the international association of insurance providers. we are trying trying to work out for performs as well and adopt standards. i understand the need for this and i understand the aig issue is probably hanging out there on behalf of some of our international neighbors but i have got a lot of big insurers in my district and we do -- have a lot of insurers that do a good job united states. i'm concerned about whether the integrity of the insurance system is being maintained during those negations -- negotiations. mr. huizenga was concerned about the lack of pay our people at the table. who is at the table and how vigorous is our representation? >> congressman treasury is at the table. the bank regulators are at the table and i think the real question is do we have the right kinds of standards for insurance companies? we have made clear we think insurance companies should be having an insurance company type of standards. it was signed into law that permits are regulators to take account of that as they impose capital requirements and insurance companies. it's now being implemented domestically. we will control the united states policy there are regulatory agencies soap we designate an institution united states the fed will make that decision. fundamentally it's a national authority. >> are right. in my last minute let me try to drill down on that issue a little bit more. there is concern regarding con frame. they are trying to compel our site to basically adopt this calm frame so i haven't read it i confess that it seems to have the attention of our insurance industry and i'm concerned about that. secondly we have g-sib's which is globally -- something or other. obviously that brings enhanced supervision on our insurers in the united states vis-à-vis our international neighbors. >> ultimately the only thing is there a qatari actions taken in the united states. the international process is trying to drive international standard to a high high-level but each national dority contains the responsibility to regulate its own and we are the national authority doing the designation. if the firm is designated the fed will be the national authority. >> i'm concerned about a follow-on effects. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina mr. mckinley. >> mr. secretary we had said chairwoman yellen in a few weeks ago and i asked her about the cumulative costs of regulations at the fed and fsoc were proposing. she referred to a study by the basel committee as a reference point that i pointed out that it's five years old and i read her mind you obviously in long before we fully implemented or got this far in the process of new regulations. but as chair of the fsoc has there have been an study done on the kimmitt of cost. >> congressman the regulators are attentive to the cumulative impact of the steps. >> so attentive but is there some point of reference for the cumulative cost of these new regulations? >> each one for example -- the. >> you can say no, it's okay. i'm just trying to get straightforward answer. >> i'm happy to answer the question. i'm trying to. if you look at each of the steps taken you can look and see with the capital requirements are and you can add up the burden as it were. it has been very clear that there was a goal of internalizing risk and firms which does increase some at of the cost to firms of their activities. we think it's appropriate because it should be the burden of the firm and not the burden of the public if anything goes wrong. having things like more capital as part of addressing the risk that causes the financial crisis in the first place. >> not simply the requirement for additional capital but is there broader review you could point to? >> i would have to go back and check if there's a conference of review but the cost that are the most significant to firms are the ones i'm describing. >> which you commit to sending the information to the committee. >> i'm happy to go back and look a woolly hat. >> back in june he testified that it was premature in your words to evaluate the effects of government regulation on market-making activities which is in some regards causing liquidity to vanish in certain marketplaces. is it your view that still premature? >> i think it's as a practical matter volcker is not in effect so firms are asking what is done in anticipation and not because of requirement. i think that there has been some movement by firms to get ready for the poker rule. i think that's a good thing because they have had fair notice and there's extension of the deadline to be sure they can prepare an orderly way. if we are sent to financial institutions that they should exit the proprietary trading business to do it in that instance is not the way we do it. i think it's premature to evaluate what the full impact is what i think it's a good thing the industry is preparing for it. >> there is pretty good significant volatility last year and some government bonds. did you follow that? >> i followed it, yes. >> you think that is all connected to diminish the quiddity provided by institutions that have gotten out of prop trading in anticipation of poker? >> it was a complicated set of things. there was a lot of news going on so there was generally an off risk kind of mood in the market that day. i think there are many who jumped to conclusion prematurely that it could all be set at regulatory practices. i don't think there is no evidence i've seen that suggests that was the predominant factor. >> wasn't a factor though? >> there were many things going on. >> you said there were many things going on but you think that volcker requirements in anticipation of volcker some of the shock absorbers out there in the system. >> the evolution of the market is driven by a lot of factors at the same time so i'm are reluctant to contribute costello costello -- causality. many are not covered by volcker so this is something that requires a lot of analysis. i'm happy to share with you the analysis. >> in many regards i think fsoc is creating more problems by diminishing liquidity in the marketplace which will create future problems potential in the marketplace. is that a concern to u.s. chairman of fsoc? >> we are all concerned about making sure we maintain the most liquid markets in the world. i do think it's a mistake to attribute to revelatory policy what happened on october 15 and i would be happy to follow up with you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california mr. sherman. >> one comment for the record in the materials for this record we talk about preserving our veto at the imf. we don't have a veto at the imf. i talked to the number to two over there saying could we prevent loans or economic aid to iran and he made it very clear that was not the case. i remember when prior administration urged us to put more money in the world bank because we had a veto there and iran got over a billion dollars in loans from the world bank over our objections. we can devote more resources to the imf but we still don't get it veto. i want to focus on currency manipulation. the administration wants to -- wants once trust and a fast-track on tpp but they told us they are not going to include currency manipulation in that. they bought into because of this idea that somebody in the world says we are manipulating our currency because we have an interest-rate policy therefore we had better not talk about the deliberate and true and actual manipulation of other countries. every time i raise this question the answer i get is china as to why we are not sanctioning china for currency manipulation. i'm told china is cheating less. i haven't been married as long as many the members of this committee but i have been advised by at least a few not to use the line but honey i am cheating less. the law is clear if china is manipulating its currency you are supposed to designate them. other than the fact that would make them really mad and they are cheating less why haven't you carried out existing law and currency manipulation? >> congressmen we have engage directly with china in their aggressive play on this question of currency policy and we have made enormous progress. >> getting them to cheat less but you are not following the law. >> congressmen if you look at what the goal of the currency report is we have been a bright line on practices that need to change. we have been aggressive in international bodies and bilateral negotiations to push hard to get change in with china in the last year we have gotten substantial recognition of that. >> mr. secretary you are not following the law but you have persuaded them to cheat less. >> if i could say the consequence that comes from the designation you're describing is an intensive consultation. >> what about the consequence to our constitutional system when the executive branch takes the attitude that congress doesn't know what they're doing so they're not going to follow the law? i would say that damage the t.a.r.p. is done to our social contract the damage and attitude that we shouldn't follow the law because it will have consequences goes to the nation's social contract is very significant. >> if you look at the record. >> mr. secretary have to go onto the next point. the last time in the time before that i asked you to take a look at worldwide unitary so we could finally tax international corporations in a fair manner. you asked me to talk to your assistant secretary for tax policy and you told me you personally would look into it. he said he wouldn't bother to look at. he's too busy so i'm going to stop asking you about it. if you are serious about taxing multinational corporations we would not be looking at seriously. we are told some the giant banks are too big to jail. we now have large financial situations abroad inspire with u.s. taxpayers to deliberately intensely and this is just cheat on taxes millions of dollars. all these people are rich taxpayers. are they too big to jail, too well-connected to jail? do you have been given the records of thousands of those who have conspired in a pre-dead pre-dead -- premeditated manner to cheat on their u.s. taxes. is anyone going to jail? >> congressmen -- the. >> is the treasury department put together criminal case? have you called the attorney general and said you have to give a high priority to persecuting because if we don't our voluntary tax system doesn't work? >> we been clear that our policy is -- >> yes but no one is in jail. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes atonement from new jersey mr. gary sherman of our capital markets subcommittee. >> the administration follows the law. mr. secretary have been in government for most of her professional career. he spent from 1,922,010 as deputy of state for resources and that serves as the chief operating officer for the department and the principle adviser to the secretary on supervision and direction of resource allocation and management activities of the department. you were the department's chief operating officer during that period of time under secretary clinton responsible for devising on resource allocation. while you are the state were you also responsible for enforcing the department's policies regarding the use of personal e-mail accounts and record retention and if not who was responsible? >> congressmen i was in the states during during that period and responsible for a vast array of responsibilities in terms of managing the department. >> were you responsible for the enforcement policy regarding e-mail's? >> that were called having any conversations that i remember. >> said lewis was lockable? >> i would have would refer to the state department. >> you would achieve operation office so the policy was not your responsibility? >> clearly the functions that did it in a straight of at the state department reported on the line. i didn't spend a great deal of my time. >> were you responsible are not? >> i take responsibility for the operations reported to me. >> were personal e-mail accounts part of your responsibility? >> personal e-mail accounts are not part of the state department. >> were you responsible for enforcement of policy regarding personal e-mail accounts? >> congressmen i don't recall being involved in policymaking. >> did you discuss with the secretary where federal law prohibited her from using government accounts? >> i have no recollection. >> did you approve of her request to use personal e-mail accounts? >> not to my recollection. >> were you aware the secretary was using personal e-mail accounts to conduct state department business? >> congressmen the state department is going through all this material. >> i know but you are right here so i'm asking you the question. were you aware she was using at the time? >> i was aware that she was e-mailing with people. i didn't pay a lot of attention to what e-mail she was using. >> i just you mount my staff and as soon as i e-mailed them even though it's an old blackberry which is terrible service otherwise and i'm not happy with it as soon as you e-mail the person has their name and account right on top of it. i assume you're in contact with the secretary on a regular basis. >> my normal communications with her were in person or on the phone. >> you were no contact with her through e-mail? >> occasionally. see that during the course of two years you have never noticed where her account was coming from? >> congressmen i'm telling you at that time i was mostly paying attentions to the substance i was communicating with her on. >> i did too but i notice where the e-mail accounts are going to because i know what the rules are. are you telling me you never made inquiry when you were e-mailing with people in the department of status to where you were e-mailing to? is that wages that? >> congressmen. sven are just a question? when he e-mail someone on official official business to do make notice of who you are e-mailing to or as you indicated you did not pay attention to you were e-mailing to? >> when i put someone's name and my blackberry and e-mail it just pops up. >> did you make notice of where you were e-mailing her? >> i just don't recall. >> i'm not asking you whether you recall. as secretary of secretary to make notice of where you are e-mailing to? >> our treasury at policy -- policy treasure is clear. >> do you disregard that? >> certainly i'm looking to make sure it's the right person. >> excellent. were you doing that under that capacity there? >> will know you put a in a minute sometimes you get a name and we want to make sure -- to. >> did you check when you were e-mailing secretary clinton? >> when someone's name pops up it doesn't automatically pop up. i don't know how your e-mail system works but often the name pops up without the full e-mail address. >> you were telling me when you e-mail people on official business as treasury secretary you did not ever check to see where it was going to as long as the name was out there and that was satisfactory to you? he did not make an inquiry as to who you were e-mailing? >> in my address book i have official address and that's where he e-mail. spam so you never made a further check, thank you. >> the. >> the time of the gentleman has expired in the chair recognizes the tillemann from georgia mr. scott. .. >> >> do you have a report how the states are progressing from our indication and a hard hit state like georgette men of that money should be coming back. much of it goes to help homeowners to pay for their mortgage up to 24 months is desperately needed for our veterans. and many are facing mortgage problems. how are we doing on that and you have a system in place to gauge how the states are doing it to make sure they are doing that to help the american people? >> we do lot to hit the allocations for the purposes designed we tried to be flexible to make sure the fund could be used not just for the more obvious purposes but like in michigan the destruction of housing that is a blight on the community. i have to go back with the state-by-state numbers. >> if you could i am sure other members want to know how they are but i am concerned particular to know what is the balance left in the states of georgia so that we could light the additional fire to make sure the money stays in georgia? , now let me ask you about isis what steps does the treasury department taken to engage with allies abroad to disrupt the ice this terrorist funding? in the acicular with the countries across europe coming together behind a common strategy to disrupt isis financing. >> we work very closely with our allies in europe and in the region to do everything we can to stop the flow of funds to support isis specifically? >> there are different countries with different degrees of disability so we have of bilateral basis to make sure they put their resources to bear to look at questionable entities i have had many conversations at a very senior level to get that commitment. the reality of isis funding isn't coming from pulling outside of the country. the way it has been funded is to conquer territory to take the bankrolls and the many in the bank vaults. it is to pressure people to make payments to support isis. >> have we been able to increase the participation with turkey for example? the eric we work closely with pressure to be attentive and control the flow of oil and those military actions have disrupted that and they have pledged to be a cooperative but it is a long border with very informal means of contraband across the border but we very much engaged with them to stop them. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. as you know, you serve as chairman as the financial oversight council. in 2010 the dodd/frank act said institutions above $50 billion of total assets is systemically important that it poses a risk to the financial stability unfortunately there wasn't anything or analysis of factors for what is a systemically important feature so it hit $50 billion. today quite honestly there is a bicameral proving to increase this number but they did not take the time to realize a bit shabby 547-5425 that they set the number section 115 authorizes fsoc that the $50 billion for the threshold be raised. unfortunately i cannot find any evidence where fsoc takes any efforts to analyze the appropriate level for the designation so has fsoc completed a review for application of standards? yes or no. >> fsoc in the members of fsoc have been very attentive to the difference between small medium or large. >> that isn't the question. have they taken a detailed analysis whether an additional threshold could be raised? >> the question informal verses discussion is the issue. >> i am talking formal sow is that no? >> i am not aware of a formal review but with the development of regulations there is a lot of flexibility for the standards nobody has confused $50 billion. >> but we could not ascertain that but they gave the lead vehicle may be there is a discussion that nothing formal has been done to address a that is too low? >> i am not aware of a formal review. >> to release a report to examine those systemic indicators with the free-market of the categories created under the basliii committee it had a huge variation between systemic importance are you familiar with that report? reuse surprised at the results? >> i have to go back to look at the details. >> did you find any flaws in an analysis? was that fair with the results? >> i don't review the reports before they put them now would give you a thoughtful comment but i am not surprised they looked at the issue. no. >> but since you have that authority to do that and there has been some discussion even in bipartisan bicameral support ibm's surprise why fsoc has not taken on the features to do that. >> would i focused on the two years i have been the chair to make sure reemployment the provisions of dodd/frank and i have encourage regulators to take note of the difference of small and medium and large says institutions. they are continuing to do that too is the extent they have flexibility it is appropriate to use it. i've not ruling out the use it is just a question first getting through implementing love paul dodd/frank. >> have you seen that report and the wide range? that the process needs to take place with that $50 billion threshold? >> i don't think there's any question with those characteristics and i don't think the only solution is to see whether you doing to make sure you are appropriately looking at institutions? garett then to do that 115 analysis. >> we're trying to make sure those burdens on medium-sized institutions are appropriate. >> which chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york >> thank you. i would like to ask you to help me understand this chart. it shows the economy begins in 2008 when president obama was elected to show the economy was hemorrhaging losing a bundle thousand dollars per month to track that job growth in the picture begins to improve five straight years of job growth told william private sector jobs over the past 60 months what factors do you think are the most important with the turnaround with grown 12 million private sector jobs the and a positive job growth for our country is never good enough and tell every american has a job is a vast improvement to what do you attribute this fast turnaround? >> i recognize that charge. >> i am sure you have seen it many times. >> that is what the chart shows. with the ability to bounce back but to get the economy moving again. look around the world where was the response? it was the united states we did financial reform to fix the problem. we went into the business to jump-start the economy to give the additional boost to the economy and then with their interest rate -- low-interest rates so with fiscal policy and monetary policy effectively to use them as they might but one thing that they should teach the world you need to use it at the right time. >> this committee has been critical of your old at -- your role has not been transparent enough but it seems fsoc is accountable and i will give one example from my own experience. last year i sent you a letter suggesting for improvements to the process of designating the of systemically important and fsoc adopted all four of those reforms to the designation in process. sova seems fsoc is willing to engage destructively with congress so for those that put forward. day think these reforms strike the right balance providing companies with a fair and thorough and transparent process to preserve the fsoc ability to identify and mitigate? either way thank you for that fsoc decision. >>. >> fsoc is a young organization that is roughly five years old message any organization richet remain open to do even better in the future. then with those sources of input to open in that process and with outside parties and what the changes demonstrate is we want to cover process with the flow of information back and forth. i just know before the rule change there was a great deal already back-and-forth not that we went from a world that there is an but there is but this is a good clarification. >> asking about germany and france and italy's decision announced last night to turn in the agents of destruction investment bank. >> can i take a minute to respond? >> very briefly. >> obviously there are vast needs not is there going to be an investment with the rights of workers and the environment. but my point all along is anyone joining need to ask a question at the al set. to make sure the government's. >> now recognizing the gentleman from missouri. >> so far it is mandatory. >> i was eight years in the office of the ordeal and i was traded early. [laughter] >> with those issues so what i want to talk about this morning especially with regards to the capital standards how they are implemented i met with insurance folks as 40 gore very concerned. that they should be held to insurance companies' standards. i assume from the comment they would not necessarily be big enough for those that we have today. >> what we have designated under the fsoc process with federal oversight by the fed. doing that on a day-to-day basis mimics the way you are saying you don't want to regulate at a federal level with capital standards? >> the standard set i am describing with the terms disparity one to regulate them differently. >> guess i have heard from the regulators with the state regulatory process with those insurance standards a think the concern was with that federal designation with insurance standard to the designated firm. that we will do so. that is developed now so i cannot tell you specifically what those will be. sova to know what did say product of insurance could or other financial activities. >> it is sure intent for those insurers that are not regulated. >> that imp -- process of insurance regulation is that the state level. >> therefore you will not? >> but that is my hope takes place with you a. >> of a quick question that we have three companies into understand how this systemically important. but economically how can never bring it down? since your the chair of fsoc what is the criteria used to say they are systemically important? >> spinning their hundreds of pages of analysis. but the transmission channels where the failure of one of those firms could lead to broader financial problems. in the case of that designation reached the conclusion the designation is appropriate because that is the case. >> you designated them is there a way to designate? >> looking at that detailed analysis spitzer you just analyze to say it looks could you actually have full list? >> would be happy to send you those public documents why those transmission channels would present the risk and the second part of your question the core activities of these businesses it is the scope of the activity. >> time is almost expired. this morning in one of the political papers there was a headline says says secret service wants $8 million to build a fake white house for trading. mr. secretary please tell maybe will not spend $8 million to build a fake white house when rehab movie sets and military bases around the world we can't build virtual reality video games that can do this. please tell maybe will spend $8 million. >> i cannot comment on the proper training practices of the secret service. >> apple put it this way we raise their budget $8 billion? >> i don't have the responsibility it was moved to homeland's security a break from treasury. >> the time has expired. >> hello mr. secretary. happy st. patrick's day. i have a bond issue to pick a bone. did you ever read it secretary clinton's a male? to see who was raking her? chemical there she needed me to look at something. >> did you talk her in at night simic's certainly did not. >> did you make sure she brushed her teeth? verity really want me to answer? >> i just thought we would go to the extreme of absurdity. i will get off of that i made my point. has 47 members of congress to knock one branch over the other to say don't talk to you? >> i am not aware. >> of 47 members of congress written to those insurance supervisors to say don't talk? >> i am not aware. >> of the ever written to isis to say we cannot believe secretary of treasury is trying to do something to contain you? >> not to my knowledge. >> if they do let us know because maybe you should not be doing their job to talk to people on an international basis but i do want to talk about fannie and freddie and had this discussion briefly before before the when into receivership the federal government borrowing 187 and a half billion dollars from the taxpayers. but since that time they have paid back $225 billion that is about a $40 billion profit ever take 20 percent of for a greater return. what have you done with that ? >> as you know it becomes part of federal receipts and general funds. >> and then they can spend it any way we want? >> as a practical matter it helped us reduce the overall. >> by a understand i think the other side has problems but i get that. but basically it comes into the general fund and we spent it on whenever we wanted. that is fine. that is a different debate but that is only the beginning when have they been allowed to pay down on what they originally borrowed? >> i think the idea they're out of the woods. >> i did not say that. >> there is still a federal guarantee. >> i understand that which i actually like my colleagues don't but i do. >> but that exposure the taxpayers have until there is finance reform. >> very enough. what type of capital reserve >> they have not. >> because we're sweeping it out to put it into the general fund? american telly move to a system beyond the current one taxpayers. >> that has been the case since the 1930's taxpayers on the hook and then they have stepped in as we promised we put have for 80 years nubbly have been paid back so bad will we stop using this has of piggyback when will we talk reforming fannie and freddie? what is the proposal to move forward? permit the import question is how you move forward on reform. we have wanted to move forward we think it is an important part portland dash parody stomach's their proposal be have not seen? began have been engaged to think through with others. >> but that is not moving forward. >> i don't disagree progress has been slow. >> how long will you keep holding them hostage? it is about homeowners by holding them hostage not allowing them to capitalize or any funds to go to the housing trust fund and basically were submitting homeowners to additional tax for the purposes of general revenue general revenue should be paid for by the general people. >> i don't agree with that analysis with the attack and homeowners but i do think there is a very serious question as long as they are in conservatorship. >> you will not let them out you will not let them pay off their debt. >> there is the need for housing finance reform to move beyond. >> one of my constituents wrote to me -- will be many not allow me to pay back what would you call that? garett the time is expired we now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> good to see you secretary lew as a follow-up on the question international insurance advisers are not speaking nuclear weapons are they? >> and in regard to make sure hillary clinton and brushes her teeth were not the tooth fairy. but in regard to emails you were secretary of state. >> deputy secretary of state for management. >> maybe we can put up an organizational chart of the department of state you actually reported to of the clinton? >> correct. >> is very -- varity said there is many modes of communication that one was even else in the correct. >> is it your testimony you never noticed she was not sending e-mail or corresponding with her from the .gov account? >> i can answer the same question again. my general motors of communication with secretary of was phone calls i did e-mail time to time and i don't remember exactly how which showed up. >> i will be patient but president obama has indicated it would be the most open and transparent government we have ever seen and as is representative some ask you to respond to the question. did you ever notice your corresponding on an account that was not the .gov account? >> congressmen. >> yes or no. >> el is make sure i correspond with the right person. >> you are very good at not answering the questions i appreciate our you tap dance everybody understands the question you're not answering it. didn't know you were corresponding with secretary clinton that was not the .gov account? yes or no. >> i remember giving it thought. >> but that is not the question and did you know, your corresponding with her with the e-mail. >> it was a long time. >> you don't remember? >> is that your testimony. >> i am saying when i emails. >> if you don't want to answer my question because you know, the question i mean three or refusing to answer some i assume you knew your corresponding with her on and the account that was not offical and i understand you don't want to lie to congress were be part of the news stories so i appreciate that but all those understand here the you are saying i a understand it was not official i don't want to tell you here is that right? >> i always endeavor to do my business in an open way. >> do used for official business your offical account a strike that had you ever used to account for their business? day macau use it for offical business. >> can you every tuesday non-government account? >> deal which time i use my personal account of i cannot access it. >> have you used a non government account for government business? >> on occasion consistent with common practice but it is not a regular occurrence state --. >> is there any disclosure of classified violation and compromising national security and national defense requires sensitive of permission be maintained in confidence to protect citizens democratic institutions andover home and protect information critical to national security is the responsibility of each individual who was granted access to classified information. >> i do not know who gave that quotation. >> that was you. it would shores. i would hope that we have laws in place that apply to everyone in government not just a few. >> to be clear classified information can be communicated over offical e-mail. >> to suspect ellen the clinton e-mail.com is is less secure and as the .gov system? river there are experts. >> i will not comment on something i cannot acknowledge. >> but on the exit from that every state department employee is to sign we're pretty certain they would sign that documentation and? >> i assume it is normal practice. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> mr. secretary i was at another hearing and i walked end and i am confused procure the secretary of what? and the treasury. >> can you came here to talk about the treasury in the economy? correct? to make international financial issues from the fed is significant to the people of the united states? the record think that is very important. by the way may be because every economy has recovered since 2008. >> has substantially we are on the right path we have more work to do but now we are an example how you bring yourself back. >> unemployment rate now? that must be very high. >> middle five. >> so maybe they don't have anything else to talk about about what your job really is so they try to talk about something else since they have nothing of substance that affects the economy to discuss with you mr. secretary of the treasury. >> i am happy to discuss the economy as long issue with mike. [laughter] -- as long as you would like >> i think we were here for to affect the american people is substantial. for me i want to ask questions that could be relevant and though the ranking member board is involved about anti-gay money-laundering issue is. number of banks have faced heavy fines and mr. secretary what do we make of those banks to be deemed in noncompliance with anti-money laundering regulations? >> those rules are very important to make sure illicit activity is koch and stopped. we have been aggressive to make a lot well understood to underscore the importance of the compliance program. what we have seen in recent years is a risk aversion developing where financial institutions if anything are going beyond what may be required. they're not required to stop doing business in a country where there is a problem but to have a compliance program to catch problems to prevent having problematic transactions. so what is the part the control or financial institutions control and we were kurt to communicate those with counterparts abroad to make sure systems are in place to have very tight standards to stop the with set many activities but also a system where financial transactions can continue. >> is there enough effort and resources? >> a think they put resources into it i think they need to look at the proper compliance program to remain engaged in important areas of congress without opening the door to prohibited activities. >> sochi use the phrase you need to know your customer what about the customers customer? >> they are responsible for where the money is coming from and going to. and banks know what are suspicious transactions to raise attention and to make sure it is clear of what is required. >> with the time that i have left i just came back and i was looking of the president's proposal and there are things that are popping up and then know you have had questions about currency manipulation if there is that chapter and i did not hear your answer but. >> i did not get much of a chance to answer. be here with the view of the unfair currency practices should be stopped we engage in a more bilateral process with budgie 20 at the imf and intensely on the bilateral basis to bring behavior to level that meets that broad level of exchange rates only using those to role of domestic purposes not to gain unfair advantage but it is separate from how aggressive we are to push back on practices that our unacceptable. >> the time is expired. >> now we recognize the gentleman from california. >> secretary lew good to see you again. we're just back from a trip to india and china and taiwan i would give you make a quick lead with those issues we're working on and working with the prime minister the momentum there is headed in the right direction last thursday the parliament approved this bill that raises the ownership tax at 49% to also allow foreign reinsurers to open branches in india that is long overdue. in china and the news is a little more ambiguous to say that they continue to expand just says you can read the headlines hear they have that investment for real-estate like lift or snap chat that continues to rise but u.s. firms continue to compete on the on level playing field with very serious limits on ownership with the regulatory pressures china recently introduced a technology they say it is on hold but they say it is scheduled into a time so i need to ask you about that. it is definitely a move in the wrong direction forcing firms use chinese technology and limit cross a border data flow and export intellectual property as a result and you have a lot less access for u.s. firms for another troubling aspect is and would require our technology firms especially financial services to hand over the encryption key or the pass code to install the back door in the system so it is a new challenge also with that bilateral investment treaty you have 18 rounds of negotiations that have taken place in my focus is what could be done with arbitration that would give us a real chance to make sure we have a mechanism to resolve the differences so tell us about this ownership camps. >> i was also in india recently and was encouraged with the direction they're moving in terms of opening markets but also making clear for american businesses our tax issues will be resolved as an obstacle. >> what about the arbitration issue? >> you raise the issue of the technology requirements we have made very clear it is a problematic set of proposals i together with the secretary of state wrote to the chinese leadership to see that they needed to stop that from taking effect i think it is very troubling it isn't the first issue that anti-monopoly of was thus also a troubling issue but we are engaging if you want to maintain that progress and have to hear those concerns freezing just to do it through channels to communicate effectively back and forth. in a matter of days or weeks to provide the first major documentation. >>, just like to get back to arbitration. you be too strenuously push the concept because of their decided in the courts of china that is a not a fair way to do a. with arbitration enter of the commercial settlements handle the fact of the is the part of the agreement? >> i have to check but i will say engagements is of the standards are high enough to enter into a bit hopefully it is a proposition there will rise as standard. >> time is expired now recognize the gentleman from georgia a. >> thank you. thank you for this appearance today. let's talk about dodd/frank is an important piece of legislation can you say how well is performing and some indication at this to how dodd/frank could have made a difference through the 2008 conference -- crisis? ag was styled to that. >> we have made the enormous amount of prospect. so are a day certificates of they can absorb the risk they take on? we have put in place consumer protections that did not exist before that metastasized through the sub prime lending problem. to put in a revolution in practices without liquidation authority to be sure the fdic can manage the taxpayers for the kind of support required in 2008 and 2009. it would work to bring global standards up. is a way for us to drive that conversation internationally with the high a global standards. we still have a lot more work to do. the idea that you never finishes not attainable because it doesn't stop dissolving it is why we ask questions about the money market fund and asset management not because there is a problem but we know it represents our risk issue to get our attention the need to ask those questions in the vans. the fact there is the f2 to bring together all the relevant regulators and authorities to ask the question if we protect financial stability and did not exist before so now list in detail the concerns i think the system is enormously more safe than it was before. >> the consumer financial protection bureau how important is it? >> would get the work they have done with the clarity of mortgage documents with the working person to understand that transaction you cannot do things like low documentation or no documentation the cost would explode in a way you did not understand i think they have done enormously powerful work in other areas and not withstanding the critique if you go to the communities there isn't a lot of respect for the quality they have done do they have the ability to work out their problems on their own. is a serious piece of business and it is hard. it is complicated and they're taking some time to get them hammered out should not be surprising. having them in place makes the system incredibly more safe. >> you have indicated legislation and can be improved upon the working with congress to make improvements? >> i have always been open to make the kind of legislative changes with financial oversight but what i have not been open to his questions over the basic approach to the real -- reevaluate or reversed spinnaker time is expired now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> we have discussed a wide variety of topics today. >> a good use of time ballet to focus back on issues rarely do i'' researchers from harvard the reason the report came out of the effect of dodd/frank with a community bank market share and even before that it was alarming that the community bankers market share that was declining since 2008 and accelerated or doubled in the time since it was enacted. the was designed to protect all of us from those institutions that almost brought the economy to its knees in 2008 but with that implementation it seems the small institutions seem to be squeezed the most of what is going on to have the greatest barriers. summit question is to save me time for one more question based on what we see with the committee banking segment is a time for regulators to use that flexibility or if not possible is a time legislatively for congress to respond to provide relief to community banks? those that did not cause the problem or is it time to save the people we saved? >> let dodd/frank and the implementation there has been a great deal of attention paid to trading community banks differently than the larger money-center banks. as you notice in your question the trend of consolidation with the passage of dodd/frank i am happy to give you a response after i look bad it. >> look at that trend because it was accelerating before it is happening at the large institutions for those that had to be taken over but the challenge we have is you can treat the mainstream banks the same as a regional bank or money center bank it is of how we do better with flexibility with the regulators. >> it appears to be a deterioration in the market share and ultimatelultimatel why that has an effect with less access to credit and at some point you have to respond. >> there is said difference ellen whether or not there is a loss of access but that consolidation process has been happening i am happy to follow what. >> since we talk about the financial system another topic which is one of the institutions as enter the international auctions has the import/export bank with a financial market. >> that plays an important role right now we have a global system were all competitors have export financing support. of the adm of the united states to unilaterally disarm where other competitors of export financing programs put exporters agree disadvantage there is a notion only larger firms benefit but that is wrong. i was in baltimore in small-business had the most important to all. if you go through the districts represented by this committee you will find examples of those set of benefiting i hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to reach new it before the end of june when it expires. if there were the international agreement to lower all subsidies that is a different story we're looking -- working to help create but we are not there yet. >> the time is expired. >>. >> thank you for being here today i have the opportunity to go to cuba twice over the last three years and it is my hope that nothing we do here wells sabotaged the possible bridge from u.s. to cuba. americans can go to north korea began gore russia or venezuela but not cuba. this sad part is we are missing out on trade we're missing out of benevolence and canada is a main trading partner and cargill does business in cuba but others are struggling trying to find out what is going on with the process so they can do business in cuba. against the ex-im bank is not presently guaranteeing loans to do business in cuba so that is our lot of companies are hesitant with the company that is considered to be unstable. is that an accurate assessment on my part? >> the action the administration took was within the lot and our authority to remove restrictions we thought were counter productive and working against the goal of a change in cuba of which gives human rights and other issues greater attention. the transactions between u.s. and cuban parties will be governed by a lot things like food sales in one of the things that changes is the payment terms are easier for companies to comply with for the purchasers to comply with. so there will be some benefit doing business in cuba but we have not opened up all the normal forms of support that we have normal relations with. we have been clear cuba as a long way to go before we have that kind of conversation. >> i agree we're not there yet. in 1993 cuba amate it legal tender but then placed a 20% surcharge on the repentances i hate the term but the term they use is a mule to carry u.s. dollars into india illegally to give it to relatives which i completely understand. but with this going on, i don't want to know about the negotiations in public hearing but it is my hope there is something being done as we move toward normalization. >> among other things travel restrictions and remittances were so it would be easier for families but imports in the telecommunications because of the exposure of cuba to the west is what we think will bring change lasting change to cuba. >> western union actually send remittances through western union. but the concern is the surcharge on the west dollars. . . >> you don't have an opinion? >> i tried to comment on the things i am responsible for. >> we just heard my friend from new york city you are the secretary. the secretary of treasury. one that has come to talk about the economy in the world economy and with all respect i just thought that we could have an observation. reading your witness statement and it is replete with considerable progress in the rainbow that is characterized in the reports of the world economy and our economy in general. but when i googled it this morning, i say that manufacturing is down in february. another article comes up and another said wholesale prices in decline for months. so is the secretary of treasury here tells is about the economy, it would be nice if we talked about some of these dark clouds that have been painted here. and so i find the lack of -- transparency and report to be stunning. at one point you said that we should in answer to a question by one of our friends on the other side of the aisle, that we should teach the world about their policy. now, we did teach them about good policy because the quantitative easing after 2008, the policies that improve the economy in a philosophy, the world economy has learned out well and that is what is driving this currently. so today i see that companies across america are being devastated by the race to the bottom that we talked about. economic principles and with them printing money and the value of our dollar is increasing dramatically. this is going to be passed with what american companies are feeling right now. that will be critical piece but i didn't hear anything about that. so that would've been a nice thing they put in here. >> i am just making observations here because we have people pointing out that there is nothing to talk about an economic situation. but in the whole deal much of the report goes into the imf and the responsibilities to the imf. nothing in your report says that the whole game depends upon the europeans to keep bailing out banks. the finance minister just recently made a comment that we should pass the whole agreement. and that is something that would've been nice if we talked about this the german population switched switch to where they don't favor greece getting any more bailouts and then this steps up the prospect that other nations would be extremely conscious about wanting to italy and spain, portugal and those other nations. those would have been nice things i've heard about the economy, mr. secretary that we heard. but we didn't hear any of that. i yield back. >> sumac the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chair. giving the secretary a chance to talk about that. i'm going to start with and hopefully the little bit closer. and what this is a civilian unemployment since 1970 and i circle the last few years in terms of job losses in 2008 coupled with job gains since then. and this is for the united states as a whole. i have another slide mr. secretary, that is for colorado where we suffer the same as the united states generally where the unemployment when skyhigh and started coming down under the obama administration and is now down to about 3.5 or 4%. so mr. secretary, would you like to comment on job growth? >> thank you. i do appreciate this very because undoubtedly there are economic statistics that go up and down month-to-month. there is no denying the trend of the u.s. economy over this last year but has been very strong growth for several years strong employment growth. when you compare the united states to europe and other parts of the world we are growing better and creating more jobs than most of the developed world put together. and i think if you asked the question why i believe it is because we have a flexible and resilient number of people and we respond with policy that works and i realize that this policy is not always something that has been a unanimous opinion about. we are in a better place now. >> giving you another slide from fred. this is the dow jones since 2005 and it shows a steady increase of 218000 from a low point of about 6000 in 2008 and 2009. >> obviously there has been recovered in a financial market where the losses from the recession have been reversed and if you look at the trends, people had retirement agencies restored. in that had property values that are starting to come back up. there are still areas. where we have seen a problem is income growth has been very slow to come back in the last year we have seen about 2% growth in we would like to see more. we are starting to see some pressure on wage growth which is a good thing, for those of us that came of age this is not feel like a natural thing. but this is not a good thing. 2% is hard to achieve. >> we have seen a continued and continual decline for the benefit of homeowners who are in a position to take advantage of this down to about 3% or 3.5%. there is no doubt that the affordability has stayed very much within reach in terms of historical standards. the challenge is that this has been too challenging for some. but the good news is that it is still a market where mortgage financing is very affordable. >> changing it to someplace where i think that there are headwinds come i would ask the secretary of treasury to watch out, and that is the tremendous oil and gas drop in prices. i come from colorado, we are an energy producing state. we have seen some layoffs and i think that our economy is strong enough to move forward through those layoffs. that there is within the sector of energy there is our number ways to deal with it. i would ask that your department be mindful of as is whether or not you want to put this for our local industry, i do not know. >> if you look across the u.s. economy, lower energy prices have actually been a shot in the arm, it has been like a tax cut for most consumers and businesses because everybody consumes and produces. equally there are pockets of the country where there has been a slowdown is no activity has been slowing. soon after we have is entered into the record? >> objection. the time of the gentleman has expired. we now recognize you mr. stivers. >> thank you. i appreciate you recognizing the benefit of tax cuts. talking to you a little bit about the economy and then if we have time insurance standards and maybe what is going on. but my local foundation just put out a report that said that 145,000 people in central ohio have been left out of this economic recovery because they have given up looking for work and they don't have the skills that they need and there is a skill gap. if you'd stop laid out across the that means that there are 11 million people suffering today even though the state unemployment rate is going down and that's still a big number. so i hope that you are spending time focusing on those people and i'm not going to ask or comment on that i'm going to say that i hope and pray that your focus on that because these are great american people who are left out of the recovery and i hope you can spend a little time thinking about them. i would like to follow up on a question that the gentleman brought up. i had a recent conversation with a lady named linda who is shopping for a house. her local bank stopped offering marketers because they felt like this compliance was too heavy for them, they are a small community bank. and i wanted to kind of talk about this. you have been there a little over two years. how much time you spend in each meeting talking about the private community banks and this idea of trickle-down regulations and how you can make sure that these consumers like lynette can get access to products at their local banks. there are no big banks in this if they are not offering residential mortgages, the people can't get them. how much time you devote in round numbers? >> i'm not sure that i can give you a round number. >> is on the agenda two sumac i can say that every time we have discussed the housing finance system and rules, whether it is this or a new form of conversation that we have there is a strong focus on what is the impact of community banks and how do we distinguish. >> is there an agenda? i would just urge you to make it take that for what it's worth it if you can do it people like linda across this country will benefit from it. and i do want to switch to international insurance stuff. i'm from ohio i want to use a football analogy for you. has team usa on the international insurance standards sort of taken upon it to make sure that we have the impact on our domestic carriers of these internatiinternati onal rules before we move forward in charge ahead of importing european standards for american companies? >> i do not think that there is this any importing standards from europe. we participated to make sure that there are high standards around the world but ultimately u.s. authorities make national rules for the u.s. >> thank you that's great. have you conducted as part of these international insurance standards, an analysis of how these impacts of the standards of the insurance industry in terms of financial and legal accounting regimes of these companies now confront. >> there is ongoing work on this. i know that our office pays a great deal of attention to what the impact is of any rules and changes. >> so you take it down to that level? >> i think that the analysis is broad. it would be happy to get back to your. >> please do. getting back to people like linda that i talk to her. and there are a lot of consumers that want to talk about this. this will affect the abilityuct and i would urge you to take a look at that. have you talked about this new standard that is being proposed, habitat your labor folks in the loop? >> we have been aware of the process. >> would you call it coordination? >> there has been information on the policy. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we now recognize the gentleman from minnesota. >> i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member. i've been talking about this for quite a long time. but as you know we have reached a frustrating point back on toguri six the bank that was doing most of the facilitation of transfers stepped out of the work and we're now at the end of the line pretty much. what can your office to to try to facilitate use of remittances? >> you and i have discussed with this the problems you're trying to address. i believe you had a discussion recently with the acting undersecretary to discuss this at some length. i think that the challenge is we all want to stop the flow of money to bad actors. >> of course. >> we also agree that people that are trying to send money to their family members were not that active it is heartbreaking that they cannot do so easily. >> forgive me, mr. secretary i must say that it is heartbreaking and i agree. but i also think it's a problem for the united states and here's why. because the narrative of al shabab is that you let your cousin send you money for school fees or food don't worry about it, we will give you the money. all you have to do is be our soldier. that's another factor that i think that we absolutely cannot ignore. it's a humanitarian crisis but we are also playing to the narrative of a terrorist organization. i would like it if you guys would start thinking of this in both of those ways. >> the challenge is always tried to be clear and we will work you to be as clear as we can as to what the armaments and rules are, we do not tell institutions that they cannot participate in this. and we cannot give this to them at the same time. >> we have a situation where we need creativity and that's what i'm asking you for. >> let me ask you this. there was a bell and a list of legislation passed that was opposed by treasury in light of the difficulty would you guys at least go back and look over potential legislation that could allow these transactions to go forward and would prevent the money from going forward. >> we would invest in whatever proposals are forthcoming and we will work with you to be as creative as possible. earlier we were talking about financial institutions that are trying to avoid any risk. saying that they can do this in a way that they can comply. we have a challenge of making clear what the rules are that does not mean that saying no activity at all. financial institutions are responsible for knowing what they are doing. >> with all respect to what you are saying, the banks will say that we want to do the transactions but a level of regulatory burden is so high. they are saying that it's more like you are stopping them. so i find it a little frustrating when i hear they're at agency says we are not stopping them, but you are creating an environment. >> i certainly don't mean to compare but we have made progress working with the mexican government and financial institutions where they are raising their level of scrutiny and they are able to avoid a shutdown with things we were worried about. i think somalia is a much more challenging environment. we will work with you on this issue. >> i think one solution is to stand up a system that meets international requirements and stop money laundering what about sending them financial help to set up a system where they can have a system that is trustworthy on international standards. >> i am happy to look at that. >> i'm i am sure that there is something that i could do. >> thank you sir we will be in touch. >> we now recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for being here today. the committee is concerned that this could go well beyond the international standards, whether on this liquidity was in many areas. we are seeing the effects of uncoordinated mandate on our financial market and in turn in the real economy. the story is before her eyes with the so-called liquidity issues. a bloomberg article talked about the issue and we had a senior executive that quoted the totality of the regulations have added a dramatic impact on the financial market. another senior noted that the liquidity is nonexistent, stating that we took that test october 15 and failed. wall street journal follows the treasury markets and liquidity is drying up. and it bluntly notes that bonds trading has reduced inventories in response to regulations and the volcker rule. a senior british regulator noted that there is enough evidence that low liquidity relative to previous years does not want careful monitoring and consideration of what could be done. bloomberg had another article that the treasury markets legendary liquidity has been drying up. it highlights and impacts the u.s. cost to borrow implications for governments and businesses and individuals when they borrow. whether directly unintended consequences of new financial regulations which have been made less willing to hold inventory and facilitate trades. lastly the nonpartisan and independent senator financial stability recently released a report on the situation in tiled liquidity shortage, houston, we have a problem. it outlines this in mark making and stretches the phenomenon markets and is detrimental to future growth by exposing the economy could potentially unnecessary shocks. this shows no succession of abating. with this evidence of all of these experts when is it time to get worried two and data driven examinations and the u.s. regulators, what are they doing on combining effects of regulations? >> i think the question of liquidity is an important one. the liquidity of the market has been a source of great strength. i think that a lot of the instant analysis was not data-driven and i think as we come to understand more about what happened on october 15, we realized there is a confluence of factors and i look forward to when we can discuss it in doing so and i think what was going on was a combination to news of the day and decision-making and i don't think that jumping to this assumption was a result of regulation. >> with all due respect and you are knowledgeable when it comes to these issues, these are individuals dealing with this every day people that know their businesses while and they are saying that these things actually happened. what we are saying is that show us where we are. i'll be going to continue to just add one more without having something concrete? >> on the broad question if you look at the result of financial reform we have made this safer and more resilient and that's a positive that we are seeing. >> we have made a liquidity problem worse by drying up the market and not allowing things to be able to get better and bass base to help people out. >> there're a lot of things going on including where we are in the business cycle. and how new trading is developing and i think it's oversimplified. >> would you be willing to work with the committee or provide is data-driven, more than just this? >> this is an important question and five minutes is not enough time. >> thank you very much. soon at the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for being here and happy st. patrick's day. >> thank you. >> before i get to my question i want to reiterate something to your staff regarding many communities particularly in the district that i represent that have been hit over the last several decades that they have markets that are not functioning because of the overhang of empty and dilapidated structures for which there is no market and to which there is no basis to come and take those properties down. there isn't anyone who could come in and take them out because there's no use for the property. you have been quite willing and working with us through the tarmac program as he said earlier in the hearing today, to tailor the use of those dollars for the particular needs of these communities that have been really struggling to try to get the markets reset. so i mention that only because obviously we have a bigger problem yet to solve and what we have done has been very significant. i would like to ask that we continue to work together to try to find solutions to that particular problem. >> congress and, i am proud of the work that we have been able to help the city of detroit do in that regard. i think it has been very significant in this whole recovery plan and we have remained in touch with providing advice. >> we have discussions and hopefully there will be a way to get there as well. >> i wish that i could be optimistic. we are looking to see what we can do and what we would like to see as we continue to remove the dilapidated housing. it's had a huge effect. >> i appreciate that. there's been other questions for you on current issues as well. coming from the auto sector and communities are so much a part of the development of the industry, could it result in us exporting our demand we export demand and jobs, my hometown has gone from a high of 79,000 people working in the auto industry to about 10,000. that is over a time of about two decades which relates to the incredible problems we faced in trying to reset markets. but i read something recently and i want to ask of you can comment. we will see if it was accurately quoted is we remain concerned that an enforceable provision could have an impact on our ability to protect american workers and firms and set back our international efforts and i guess i'm concerned about from our perspectives when we think about trade being the problem it's not true that the problem the trade deficits. i see currency manipulation and management by our competitors not just an important concern that the central issue when it comes to our ability to compete in the auto sector. i'm wondering if you can, because it would seem to me that getting a deal should not come at the sacrifice of what i was thinking and that is the ability to deal with currency manipulation. >> congressman, i think that we do agree as a country that engages in unfair practices gaining unfair advantages needs to be pushed back and we do that through the multilateral channels that we have, the g-7 and the g20, we do it aggressively on a bilateral basis. and i think that if you look at it and whether it should be enforceable discipline in a the trade agreement, there is a different question. and there are legitimate monetary policies in the united states and other countries, this has been a legitimate domestic purpose for there to be the kind of economic activity that could promote a recovery. i don't think those policies should be subject to trade review the way that other issues

Related Keywords

Qatar , Turkey , China , Minnesota , United States , California , Portugal , Mexico , India , Massachusetts , Cuba , Jersey , Spain , Greece , New York , Canada , Germany , Missouri , Iran , Macau , Texas , Wisconsin , Georgia , Taiwan , Michigan , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Colorado , Houston , North Korea , Somalia , Ohio , France , Venezuela , Italy , Americans , America , Chinese , Mexican , Qatari , British , German , American , Cuban , Costello , Al Shabab , Gary Sherman , Paul Dodd Frank , Hillary Clinton , Dodd Frank ,