and then marco rubio, who says he wants to reform dodd frank. >> we need to repeal dodd frank.is eviscerating small businesses and small banks. >> federal documents reviewed by "inside story" however show that two top members of the rubio campaign have been lobbying against dodd frank not from main street but on behalf of two of the biggest wall street firms in the world, firms that stand omay millions with the roll back of dodd frank. the forms don't say whether someone's lobbying for or against something but we do know what goldman sachs and blackstone have said about dodd frank. reuters for instance reported that goldman sachs was, woat, quote totally freaked out by this, kerry lloyd blankfine seen here with rubio says his in 2016, one blankfine employee joe wall is also the washington, d.c. co-chair of marco rubio's campaign. wall is a senior vice president for government affairs, that's lobbying at goldman sachs. the firm's most recent disclosure forms show they spent $742,000 in the last quarter of 2014 lobbying congress on issues specifically including dodd frank which j

in 2010 he warned that the dodd- frank law would backfire... but he says he was up against a powerful lobby. >> imagine that you have angelina jolie at your door. you are a very big u.s. company, george clooney at your door saying you guys, you're the ones fueling the armed groups there. do you think that for the reputation of those companies they would be still sourcing from this region? they said ok we are stopping and that's what happened. >> soon after the law passed, companies took their business elsewhere. sales of tin ore from this province plummeted by more than 90%. >> ah the containers. >> that's the material ready to be exported. we are doing almost 2 containers while we used to do 8 containers per month. >> the only way john, or anyone in congo -- can now legally export to the u.s. is by opting into a system that traces the origin of the minerals. >> yes i can show you some. these are the tags. >> so these tags are attached to the bags of minerals that come here? >> yes. >> at mines that are determined to be "conflict free" bags of

and not as a result of dodd/frank. bloomberg has calculated with the 80 basis points. because of the financial part of its. that they are too big to fail to give the big banks another reason and the gao report as of 30-year 15 basis points. the others say too big to regulate were too big to jail. in with that political power? debate but that study were some versions and show the tune big to fail it did take to shrug. >> so dodd/frank and the agreement we had is a vigorous and a good direction that under the new capital rules because they're big but they had dash floor capitol and the biggest firms with a higher percentage of capital. and their subject to the special said oversight. and with the liquidation of authority both reported dead constructive way the head of the fdic the ability to unwind in a way that could be done without breaking down. cell to make them more costly is the advantages to be bigger than what you see as companies talk about drinking. so she capital talks about investing today there was the discussion that agee should prevent to avoid that extra

dodd-frank doesn't really touch that. it is a series of regulations that try to restrict banks and tries to stop what happened and the mortgage crisis from happening again. dodd-frank was passed in 1910 very recently. >> thank you very much. very insightful. a couple questions. in the 32 years following 1913, we had two world wars, we had great depression, social security drop of '35. and how do you think american history would have changed if we didn't have the federal reserve in that question? the other question is given the lessons of the 32 years across the board in terms of public policy and what happened across the globe what do you think or how do you think the act might have been amended or changed if the creators had been able to foresee all of the changes? >> i cannot look at what would happen in a hundred years without it. but one act, i think is they were so concerned with not offending people who didn't want a central bank and also wanting to achieve warburg's purchase that they struck it halfway by having th

so no wonder that big banks after dodd-frank haven't gotten st. pauler. big banks have gotten bigger. and the small community banks that i'm sure service a lot of the folks in this room and service folks in my community, they're going away. big problem. >> i just had to get it off my chest. a lot of exciting things to that the about with you, chair yellen, as the chair of the oversite committee i have concerns about your willingness to comply with our requests. we sent a letter in the medley investigation and in our oversight of the fed asking you for information regarding communication. no compliance. we sent you a subpoena in may, you did not comply with that. we had partial compliance in, in october. we're now a year after my initial letter. i've asked you for excerpts of the fomc transcripts in regard to the discussion in regard to the internal investigation on medley. you have not provided those to me. is it your intent today to promise that i will have those, if not this afternoon, tomorrow? >> congressman, i discussed this matter with chairman hint

those covered by section 165 of dodd-frank. can you give us some specific examples of the kind that might be in the works as the federal reserve works on this? and will there be relief on stress testing and resolution planning? chair yellen: so we are actively engaged in reviewing our stress testing and capital framework for the bank holding companies ove $50 billion we are considering that risk burdensome that are close to the $50 billion asset line. along with that we might make it somewhat stricter for some of the gsibs. we are considering that as well .nd that would be tayloring we are paying close attention to the cost and benefits of particular changes how they affect those institutions. we haven't made final decisions, but that's certainly on the drawing board. senator crapo: will we see that announced soon? chair yellen: certainly this year. but i think if we were to make changes, they would not take effect until the 2017 cycle of stress testing. senator crapo: and shifting topics, because of the of the liquidity issues

and we understand that because of basel 3, we had a lot of concerns, we debated dodd/frank and including provisions like volcker and fsoc, they were driven by concerns of the large banks in active capital markets and i know that you're not the only -- the fed is not the only regulator overseeing implementation of dodd/frank. but i'd like your thoughts on how the rules may have been tailored or should have been tailored for small and community banks. you know, the stress test, the capital standards are killing our small banks. compliance. officers that where they don't have the additional staff. just your thoughts on what should have been done or how has it been tailored. >> well, let me say that i think community banks and their vitality is exceptionally important. they provide enormous benefits to the country and to the economy. i recognize that the burden on community banks is intense. >> they're shutting down. >> the regulatory burden. for our part we're focused on doing everything that we conceivably can to minimize the burden on these banking organizations. we've been conducting a r

dodd-frank, great. good job.are still mad that people lost their homes, lost their jobs, and not a single banker lost their jobs. that's the problem here. that's why people are fed up. >> all right, first of all, you made a serious mistake there. no banks have gone to jail and i wish some have. a lot of them lost their jobs. >> sorry, none of them went to jail. you're right. >> let me finish. of course, we want higher taxes. so does hillary clinton. we want to tax carried interest on hedge funds, which they hate. i'm sorry. may i finish? you said we want to raise taxes. erin made a good point about the specific impact on one particular tax, but hillary clinton and others are united in raising taxes. by the way, senator sanders was a fairly senior senator during that period of president obama's presidency. he was not able to accomplish any of the things he now says he can do. i don't fault him for many of those ideas. i agree with them. i fault him for making it sound much easier than it is and denigrating anythin

we are six years past dodd frank. it doesn't strike me as entirely acceptable that we are still working on the details of all of this. i know what the reasons are, i know what the stated reasons are. but if there was a real sense of urgency here, i think we would be further along. mr. wessel: i should remind people, we have some questions in a bit. the colleagues in minneapolis are monitoring twitter. you can ask questions that way. neel, so congress that it does not want more bailouts. congress has limited the ability of the federal reserve to do what it did in 2008. it has given the fdic, for better or worse, powers. are you saying that in a crunch, the fed lawyers and treasury lawyers are so good they will find a way to evade the rules that congress set up? or are you suggesting that we will be once again in the middle of the night, chair of the fed, going to congress on bended knee, saying i need tarp 2.0? mr. kashkari: i know many of my fed colleagues has said this, the idea, we all hate forest fires so let's tak

it's the best way to weaken dodd-frank and it's the dream of wall street. general regulators are trying. ultimately lead to safety rules which has been a long time battle in this institution. they wanted to preserve their privilege and power. cost benefit analysis just helps the powerful people in this town resist any kind of regulation that makes people's lives better whether it's health, safts, safety and soundness of the banking of the financial system. allow can you be against regulatory reform and cost b benefit analysis? it's not counting the slow walk and how easy to delay things. you sent a letter out signed by many other agency heads. just explain why you sent that letter and kind of make your case for why that's so important. >> well we were very concerned that the bill under consideration, first of all, would have a severe impact on the independent agencies ability to put out rules that would involve executive branch presidential involvement. i agree with you. it would cause very significant delays in implementing regulations and probably result

in dodd-frank, we were concerned about the bilateral nature of derivatives and so we have required on a clearing that form which creates a multilateral .ssue that in itself introduces the possibility of systemic risk and one of the lessons of the crisis was always be on the watch for the next outline and take proactive steps to prevent it. in that context, the oversight council noted there are still a number of central clearinghouse platform issues. can you give us your comments about how close you are watching ? a constantng to be area of emphasis and investigation? ms. yellen: i completely agree with you, creating those central clearing platforms has importantly managed risk in the financial system. but they are a source of risk. thats been pointed out making sure they are appropriately supervised and operate subject to very high they arebecause platforms that concentrate risk. this is a high priority for us. these platforms are supervised. the fcc has significant story here. backup authority. globally, there's a focus on comprehensive and strong supervision of these , so we are not

our deep concern with what you are doing with regard to implementing, the limiting language in dodd frank at that time. you have come out now with a rule despite our admonition and christians in that letter, a role that would basically allow the fed to drive a mack truck through the various loopholes in with the is typical fed, lacking in clarity and transparency. fed is notsaid, the always not clear in what they want to do and the regulators are not always clear and what they want to do. they came up with the volcker rule and the fed was not china about elaborating on concepts in that statute. it went so far as to adopt prohibitions and trading assets that were clearly never intended by the statute. the fed and other regulators came up with the part of the volcker rule defining what the words proprietary trading is. some800 pages to make definition clarity in the area of the volcker in proprietary trading. compare that to what you did under the limitations that should be in place under dodd 47 pages of3, definition and lack of clarity throughout. why inst question is, one area can you be

those covered by section 165 of dodd-frank. my question is can you give a specific examples of the tailoring that might be in the works is the federal reserve works on this and will there be stress testing and resolution planning? >> so we are for example actively engaged in reviewing our stress test, testing and capital planning framework for the bank holding companies above $50 billion we are considering ways in which we can make that less burdensome to the bank holding companies that are close to the 50 billion-dollar asset line. along with that we might make it somewhat stricter for some of the -- we are considering that as well and i think that would be tailoring it appropriately at both ends of the spectrum. we are paying close attention to the costs and benefits of that particular changes and how they affect those institutions, so we haven't made final decisions but that is certainly something on the drawing board for a hope you can make progress. >> do you believe we will see any of that tailoring announced soon or appl

in dodd/frank passed by my friends across the aisle, fannie and freddie weren't touched at all. fannie and freddie were allowing folks in this home to get homes they couldn't afford and they were hurt. didn't touch them. the regulators had wild authority and power. they failed. and instead of taking a look at the regulation and regulators, we've re-empowered regulators. so no wonder that big banks after dodd/frank haven't gotten smaller. big banks have gotten bigger. and the small community banks that i'm sure service a lot of folks in this room and in my community, they're going away. big problem. i had to get that off my chest. a lot of exciting things to chat about with chair yellen. i do have some concerns about your willingness to comply with our request. we sent a letter in the investigation, and our oversight of the fed, asking you for information regarding communication. no compliance. then we sent you a subpoena in may. you did not comply with that. we had partial compliance in octob october. we're now a year after my initial letter. i've asked you for exerts of the fom

i know that you are not the only regulator overseeing implementation of dodd frank. i like your thoughts on how the rules may have been tailored or should have been tailored for smaller community banks. the stress test, the, the capital standards are killing our small banks, compliance, officers where they do not have the additional staff. just your thoughts on what should have been done or how has it been tailored? >> let me say that i think community banks and their vitality is exceptionally important. they provide enormous benefits to the country and to the economy. i recognize the burden on community banks is intense. >> they are shutting down. >> for our part we are focused on doing everything we can conceivably can to minimize and reduce the burden on these banking organizations. we have been conducting in a review to identify potential burdens that our regulations impose on these banks. we will do everything we can to respond to the concerns that are identified there to reduce burden. we are looking for many ways, first of all we had tried to tailor our regula

toolie: after dodd-frank, big to fail was still a problem.eel: no matter your political party, none of us wants to be in a position where we have to use taxpayer money to stabilize large banks. the question i asked is, did dodd-frank go far enough? i joined the federal reserve. i'm talking to the experts. the minneapolis fed literally wrote the book on too big to fail before the crisis, the original version. there are a lot of experts in minneapolis. i started talking to them on their ideas about too big to fail. i realized my concerns are still valid. at the these giant banks center of our financial system. if one of them collapses, there are all these linkages to the whole economy. it is like the heart, the arteries, and the veins. if you have a heart attack, it can kill the whole body. that is what we saw in 2008. when the biggest banks ran into trouble, they brought the whole economy down with them. in contrast, think about silicon valley. we had the tech boom. it crashed into thousand. devastating for silicon valley but it did not cause

dodd-frank doesn't really touch that. it is a series of regulations that try to restrict banks and tries to stop what happened and the mortgage crisis from happening again. dodd-frank was passed in 1910 very recently. >> thank you very much. very insightful. a couple questions. in the 32 years following 1913, we had two world wars, we had great depression, social security drop of '35. and how do you think american history would have changed if we didn't have the federal reserve in that question? the other question is given the lessons of the 32 years across the board in terms of public policy and what happened across the globe what do you think or how do you think the act might have been amended or changed if the creators had been able to foresee all of the changes? >> i cannot look at what would happen in a hundred years without it. but one act, i think is they were so concerned with not offending people who didn't want a central bank and also wanting to achieve warburg's purchase that they struck it halfway by having th

dodd-frank?peal dodd-frank. >> in its ensenator >> in its entirety. the reality is that the problem they got they are into this whole too big to fail or after all the larger guys, all of that comes down and stifles the secondary banks. ethical be better off, this is going to sound radical, let a couple fail. what happens then? all right. if it's a private little bank, the family loses money. if it's public the shareholders lose money guys that tone bonds lose money. depositors won't lose money. so rather than stifling stifling regulatory world they would be better off letting the market -- i'm talking secondary, the nonsystemic stuff. >> what about the top ten. would you regulate them with dodd-frank. >> i don't like dodd-frank. they would repeal dodd-frank. if you look at the system now we have a third more capital in these banks than we have. we have a much heightened concern on lending. >> what about the living will aspect of it? the idea that if a big bank like a bank of america, jpmorgan wer

we are six years past dodd-frank. it doesn't strike me as acceptable that we are all working on the details. i know what the reason our, but if there was a real sense of urgency here, i think we would be further along. >> i should remind people we will have some questions in a bid to defuse the hash tag, one of the colleagues in the minneapolis fed is monitoring twitter but their questions from not wait to get into the row. two questions. so congress that it doesn't want more bailouts. congress has limited the ability of the federal reserve to do what it did in 2008. it has given the fdic, for better or worse powers and the fdic developing powers. are you saying in a crunch the lawyers and treasury lawyers are so good they will find a way to evade the rules that congress set up, which is responsibility, or are you suggesting we will be once again in the middle of the night the chair of the fed, whoever it is going to congress on ben did me for a t.a.r.p. to point out. >> it will depend on the situation. i know many of

dodd frank was not an accident. the deal with iran was not an accident they may have been incompetent how they manage government daily basis. in terms of the policies they're improving. these are strategies to redefine the country and that's one of main reasons i'm running. if we continue on the road it will deny our children to live in the greatest country. i hope they keep replaying the lines. >> all right. lot of people are wondering abut your strategy on that. let's move on. you said coming out of iowa. you were the guy, marco rubio. marco rubio. after the debate. he took a big fall. how do you feel about your debate performance? how are you feeling going into new hampshire? >> i feel great about it. voters across the country and here in new hampshire got to hear me say repeatedly the truth. barack obama is trying to redefine the role of our government in the country and america's role in the world. the evidence, we raised more money in the first hour of the debate than any other debate. we feel great. end of th

and in terms of the list of what was mandated by dodd frank, we've made substantial progress. >> consider that outcome -- we're seeing today, i think it needs to be done. >> time. time of the gentleman has expired. the chair wishes to remind members we expect to excuse the witness as close to 1:00 as possible. the chair anticipates getting through perhaps four more members. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the super bowl champion denver broncos, mr. perl. >> thanks, mr. chair. and chair yellen, thank you as always for being here today. and i was going to go a little off topic with my first question to say how about those broncos. but -- >> way to go. >> the chair already beat me to the punch. but i do want to talk about your overall conversation today. i want to thank you and i want to thank the federal reserve. i want to start with the chart that we have on the board which is really shows what happened at the end of the bush administration when we went to 10% unemployment. under obama, we're down to less than half of that. okay? so that's your chart number two in your monetary

with implementation of dodd-frank and international banking that you actually made the banking system a lot more stable. there still remains some holes in the regulation of the international financial system. i would say one of the things is we fix problems in the sectors where we see the problems. it is likely the next problem we see is somewhere we didn't xe expect it or apply regulations. we were thinking about 2008 that it wasn't the main line banks that were the big problem. they were regulated in the 1930s in response to the great depression. but we wound up with problems in the shadow financial system because individuals, firms, banks and other financial institutions worked their way around those regulations or to use the term of financial innovation they innovated a way around the regulations. so we put in a set of regulations now that i think made the system safer for a period of time. more robust and more stable. but people are going to look around for a way of evading the regulations so they can get a higher rate of return and impose the risks upon the greater financial sys

>> no, because that's what we tried to fix in dodd-frank. >> right.n brothers, it was investment banks like lehman brothers, big insurance companies like aig, mortgage companies like country wide. so the only culprits were not just the banks, there were others as well and i'm the only one with a plan who says, hey, guys, dodd-frank is great, it gives us the foundation, it doesn't go far enough. we need to look at these other entities that pose systemic risks as well. >> a champion on these issues a elizabeth warren. do you see a role for her in this campaign -- >> this is a recurring theme. you can feel my pain right here. >> i have the highest regard for her. i think she's doing an amazing job. she signed a letter two years ago urging me to run for president and we consult regularly, my staffs consult regularly with her staff. so i am very --ç >> let me ask you this follow-up question -- >> very much interested in what she's doing and what she thinks we should be doing. >> let me ask mika's follow up question. will you consider her as vice president

dodd-frank wasn't an accident. the deal with iran was not an accident. dodd-frank wasn't an accident. the deal with iran was not an accident. >> if new hampshire voters are taking notice, rubio's stumble, in the eyes of the donor class could create an opening for the governors. there are definitely rumblings of a kasich surge. he's been doing tons of town hall in the state. in an interview he told my colleague he's staying focused on his own campaign. >> i'm like a golfer. i watch my game, the 17th and 18th hole, i don't look at the leader board. i go in the clubhouse and normally in this business, i win. we marched in a lot of obscurity for a long time. maybe we'll get to the point where that obscurity will come to an end. >> jeb bush hoping to out perform his poll numbers. hillary clinton would scrap the bark off rubio. chris christie said that in race where expectations are half the battle, rubio has already lost. >> it's over. his campaign putting out marco stuff is not happening anymore. the fact is because he

as you know, dodd-frank was put into place for basically the banks that had done fraud. these banks had nothing to do with it. and it comes down to these small banks and they can't afford to go out and hire six or seven people to comply with the rules that have been put in place. and it costs those individuals and these small community banks, which at the end of the day they have to add that back to the consumer. when you close banks in small rural communities, such as credit unions and small banks, that takes out the lifeblood of a community for small businesses. >> we're going to get to some sba news, also why your legislation to give the small business person easier go figuring out what rules they are responsible to comply with, that's an important bill i want to get to in the next segment. but you have said it many a moment ago here on the show that, you know, these onerous regulations, how they strangle the economy. explain more why. >> well, what it does is through the process of rule-making -- we'll give you one example that was brought up by the home builder asso

have a firm grip on the cumulative impact on the real economy of thousands of pages of the new dodd-frank regulations, especially new capital and liquidity rules. i'm wondering if you share some of those concerns. >> well, i recognize that some of the new concerns are burdensome and do raise banks' cost of financial intermediation. in designing those regulations, we're always trying to achieve a balance between the benefits of creating a sounder and more resilient financial system that is less likely to be subject to the kind of devastating financial crisis that we had. we're balancing that against burdens that can raise the cost of capital or diminish financial mediation. intermediation. and we have tried to strike a reasonable balance remembering . and we have tried to strike a reasonable balance rememberinin. and we have tried to strike a reasonable balance remembering that the financial crisis, nothing resulted in more harm for a longer period of time than the financial crisis that we lived through. and i think we now have a much safer and sounder financial system. >> okay. so another

and iting much further than dodd frank. it goes much further than restoring glass siegel it goes into shadow bankings, goes after hedge funds. now that is full disclosure i am on the record, if somebody in one of these firms wants to give me money, i hope they know they're giving money to someone who is going to make sure they never wreck the economy again. >> dickerson: in the debate you also said, quote, senator sanders is the only person who i think would characterize me a woman running to be the first woman president as exempli filing the establishment." isn't the experience you're running on gained through years of working in democratic politics, doesn't that put you in the establishment, all that experience? >> well, i don't know. senator sanders has lot more do. i find that amusing. he's been elected official nor far longer than i was. i think i bring a great mix of experience and i think being a woman is a big part of how i see problems, how i think about solving problems, what i believe is absolutely foundational s