know that they have been abused by all street before congresswoman i my understand of the dodd frank bill is that it. you know there were some specific laws or or pieces to it and there were a lot of pieces that were sort of yet to be written and some might be written by congress some might be written by. the c.e.o. to see and others are you asking the commodity futures trading commission to enact a law that was already passed by congress as part of god frank war are you asking them to use an authority that they have under dodd frank to to begin a process and if so what is that or which which of those two is the well the dodd frank bill the bill that regulated wall street may have dated that the as a c f t c actually sat a limit on how much speculators can invest in. oil in oil trading and it said that one trader can't invest more than twenty five percent of the available market which seems very high and bernie sanders things that's a bit too high he's the one who initiated this letter so they already have that authority and in october of two thousand and eleven they sat a limit but they

remember that these are the very same people that would like to repeal all of the dodd frank bill the tried to prevent this the housing collapse that we all face that brought down almost brought down the entire economy and our part of their crusade is to absolutely repeal about legislation it's quite remarkable we have seen that the. the the republicans have been the side of the oil companies and now the speculators wall street all the time all the way and and so it's really not that surprising that we can't get the republicans to join us in saying let's get the wall street speculators they'd rather claim barack obama they'd rather say it's about drill baby drill even though we're drilling more were importing less we you know have greater supply than that than we actually need right now and so i'm not surprised one bit you know so they're just playing politics congresswoman in the half a minute we have left do you think that the sea of t.c. is going to respond favorably to your to your letter well i think so i think that the pressure that we're putting on them will will have an effect

>> the dodd-frank bill provides greater oversight of the financial system, would it have stopped what happened? know. because there were too many other factors in play. >> pete sr? >> i agree with that, the crucial elements of the dodd-frank bill could have eased it in some part, but you may be looking at a higher cost of capital, which would not have been desireable. >> aagree. dodd-frank would have not stopped it. >> so, we have not even won the last war. ? >> no dodd-frank happened after we lost the last war. >> the perspective is, basl three is saying that banks should carry adequate capital to say that if something goes wrong, you remain solvent and you need to make sure that when a shock hits it's not too big. we going on with dodd frank the basl 3 accord is a formal useful device for ensuring written reduced risk. >> fair enough. now, everybody knows that what happened between t.a.r.p. 1 and t.a.r.p. 2 and eventually it was passed. thankfully. and the system was saved. and banks are now back to where they were before the crisis. recovery is durable. during the housing market is

we may not like the dod frank bill. we may think that it incouple behrs the securities market, we may think that the authorities are better off exercised by the treasury department. we may have all of those objections, but those objections are to be heard in the debate on the legislation. once the legislation is passed, they are to be advanced. the law is to be honored and that includes honoring the recess appointment authority of the president. you know, there was another reason, i think, mort, for the lack of intra-session appointment. and that was because the initial years were spent trying to figure out which vacancies were covered. those that existed prior to the -- to the recess or those that only arose during the context of the recess. that was where most of the focus was in the 18th and 19th centuries. but with the exception of the misguided attorney general knox, who was rather promptly overruled, it seems to me that every attorney general that has examined this, and every office of legal counsel that has exami

it is a dod d-frank bill x. estimate was nine billion dollars. and it is 110 billion and 10 times the costs and they can't do anything right. why would we expect it? we shouldn't be surprised. fannie mae and freddie mac. they don't do anything right and it is a dumb system and get rid and get the federal government out all of these things and let somebody who knows how to run a business run it. >> looking at cbo reports. 21 million people will not get coverage from the employers and it is it a big shift for companies whether or not they are willing to offer health insurance and they are not doing it. what about the cost of that. >> they said 20 million is the worst case sceniario. it is three-5 . they have no insurance options and the health care law provides others k. and you are guilty of not reading beyond the first line of the report. costs went up and so have the revenues and on net, health care law will cost less than what it was projected a year ago. the fact of the matter is, cbo still maintained that the health care law will reduce the d

. >> she talked about how the pass enl of the dodd-frank bill helped to ensure the integrity of u.s. markets. this is about 35 minutes. >> good morning, have happy to wi welcome you all to washington. for se speaks 2012. i'm the director of the enforcement division and i'm honored to serve as cochair as sec speaks along with my -- as cohosts, our principal job is one of timekeeping to get us off to a good start, let's move right into the program. the conference covers would days. today and tomorrow, and we will be presenting a number of panels from various sec divisions and offices to discuss, issues, developments, trends, cases, regulations in the sec's work over the past year. we have invited commentators, to give our views on each panel. many of them have previously served as commissioners or in other capacities so they can offer perspectives from inside and outside the sec. over the course of the day, you'll hear from the sec's chairman, mary shapiro and from four other commissioners. aside from the session, we will be offering work shops, smaller break out sessions at the end of

they will prepare a -- repeal the dodd-frank bill. on the very first day of the new administration i will sign all three of those appeals to clear the slate and focus on getting positive things done to create jobs in america. on the first day about two hours after the address, i will sign a series of orders. the first one will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. we well on that first day to move the embassy from tel levied to jerusalem and defend israel's right of sovereignty. we will reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy and no taxpayer money will be spent on abortion outside the united states,. . -- outside the united states, period. the obama administration apologists to fanatics while attacking the catholic church and right-to-life institutions in the united states. on the first day i will order the repeal of everett anti- religious act of this -- will order the repeal of every anti- religious act of this administration. to go back energy come on the first day i will sign the pipeline for canada and i wi

so we've been trying to track cumulative effective the dodd/frank bill. it has about 400 rulemaking requirements in it. some of them you're required to comply with. and recently we reached a milestone i think of 400. we put out about 140 of the rules. and so we still -- so about a third of the way through there. it was alarming to find that basically the regulators themselves published it would take about 22 million man hours per year to comply with the first 140 regulations. and so that means we're two-thirds of the way. and so we're obviously headed to a lot of compliance hours. it was interesting to also note that only took 20 million man hours to build the panama canal. i think that most everybody would agree that 20 million man hours spent building the panama canal created more economic opportunity than in $22 million man hours complying with regulations. are you concerned? i mean, that this level of regulation and this kind of burdens that we're putting on the markets and the market participants, is that healthy? >> congressman, i do think it's impo

exploitation wouldn't work. >> now the commission already has these powers it was passed in the dodd-frank bill was supposed to have been taken effect a year ago, and they were supposed to have drafted the rules to limit this. they took a draft, and then kick it over to the securities and exchange commission who is supposed to do something else. but all of these speculators in the meantime filed a lawsuit. what does your bill do to be able to circumvent the lawsuit that the lobbyists for the investment community filed? >> the lawsuit was against the -- my futures trading commission, saying it could not impose this rule which basically says that speculators can't corner the market or in effect exercise their financial powers, and we circumvent it not in an improper way, but the section of the statute that says use the powers to curve excessive speculations to make sure the market conditions will not have an effect. and the united states state department of justice to investigate any price fixing or gouging any of the illegality, and maybe even using the grand jury if there is evidence of illegal

. >> well, and so, you know, you've got the dodd-frank bill has been slowed in terms of enforcement by a lot of corporate pressure and there's been a lot of discussion about how much wall street has been giving to people who have been trying block the implementation of it. is the corporate influence and their ability to fundraise making it impossible for government to do its job? >> well, in some ways, yes. the corporate people themselves, the financial people know better. i am critical for this reason, if you have a congressional republican party today that is outside of the mainstream of thought, you have people in the house, they don't believe that there is any problem with climate change. they are really homophobic. you have the federal reserve. ben bernanke, a bush appointee he has been working and was originally doing this with other bush appointees, they have been now with some obama appointees, trying to stabilize the world financial situation and working to do to keep europe from having a crisis that will rebound negatively on america. they're being attacked by right wing memb

[cheers and applause] >> they will repeal the dodd- frank bill. they will repeal sarbanes-oxley. and on the very first day of the new administration, i will sign all three of those repeals to clear the slate and focus on getting positive things done to create jobs in america. and on the first day, about two hours after the inaugural address, i will sign a series of executive orders. the first one will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. [cheers and applause] >> we will on that very first day move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem in defense of israel's right of sovereignty. we will on that first day reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy and no taxpayer money will be spent on abortion outside of the united states, period. [cheers and applause] >> the obama administration apologizes to radical islamist religious fanatics while attacking the catholic church and right to life institutions to the united states. on the very first day i'll issue an executive order repealing every anti-religious act of this administration. [cheers and applause] >> and to g

in fact, we could-- the dodd frank bill and because the way it was handled we've centralized more power in new york banks and made the big banks bigger. we put more power in the treasury, it's exactly backwards. you had taken the same number of dollars and helped people who had mortgages so they then paid the banks, you could have achieved the same kind of a goal in a much more human oriented model. what they tried to do, they poured the money in from the very top and this is true for both bush and obama. they poured the money at the very top and it never trickled down. the big banks kept the money. he they haven't made the loans and frankly the regulators under dodd frank depressed the housing market so it's still declining. this is exactly the opposite of what we should have done so i would have favored increasing the number of local small independent banks, they're the people who make most of the loans to small business, i would have favored helping people work out their home mortgage problems, rather than foreclose and i would have favored looking at helping people, not helping larg

i start off trying to be bipartisan, and then i just heard that the dodd-frank bill and obama possums problem. i would like to invite anyone who has any information whatsoever, the justice department, the cftc, anyone who has given mr. jon corzine a past related to this matter, i would like to see it and it would be another matter we don't have. i would like to know if dodd-frank cause this problem, then what caused we human brothers, what caused bernie madoff? i know we are here to make a point, but let's stick to the matter. if you know, go to the justice department and tell them. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i appreciate you yielding. the point that i am making, i am quoting the commissioner at the cftc. it is his observation. it is his observation that since the dodd-frank act became law, the commission has acted in this way. it is his observation that he has concentrated on swaps rule-making while averting its gaze from futures market -- >> i would be happy to go for my time -- >> i would be happy to join with the gentleman asked them that question to see if they think publicl

republican candidates are out there on dodd-frank bill. we hate dodd-frank.. how motivated is the public and how much of a winning circumstances it for the gop to get up there and defend banks. >> losing issue. i wouldn't go there. you have plenty of other stuff. yeah. so now you're going to go to energy. there we're trying to centralize energy. we're trying to say we'll support this and we'll support that and not give leases and do other things. so you get this, it's basically a fundamental argument about central government control versus decentralization. that's what you're really arguing. you go to each of these three sectors that's the debate. that's why people -- the winning arguments are health care, as your poll said. and gasoline. >> i want to make one point which i recall the debate between mondale and reagan back in 1984. somebody said, the difference between republican and democrat, that was 5%. that's what the defense budget requested by reagan versus the one support by mondale. when you talk about central control you're talking about president ob

and congress has enacted the dodd-frank bill with some oversight of wall street. and the president has been sounding like a populist from time to time. are you satisfied with the progress? >> we're not. i mean, i would say that it's been hard for the president to tap into that populist bone in his body. i think some of us question whether it's there. it often feels like he's kind of trying to eat his worst, or least favorite vegetable. putting some broccoli down his throat. and he can do it for a couple days. but then he kind of moves back towards the middle. but he's got a chance to prove himself. and i think what we need is a leader that's willing to put direct pressure on the big banks to come to the table. there's a number of things that they need to do. but some of them are very clear. they can write down principle on mortgages to fair market value. the new settlement that they just signed with the attorneys general and the big banks, it actually is around $25 billion. that may sound like a lot. but that's 3.5% of the $700 billion that we are underwater as a

under dodd-frank, the bill the lenders can satisfy this requirement by originating a qualifying mortgage which is a safer, more sustainable product. and how will that definition of qualifying mortgage relate to the rules that you're putting together on ability to pay? >> okay. >> i told you it was a long question. >> it was a long question, but have i long answers typically, so maybe they match up. as i said is earlier on the subject, i want to be a little careful because it is a pending rule-making. there was the proposed rule that the federal reserve put out, and it's now fallen to us to finalize that rule. we are consulting with other agencies, and we have received extensive input on the rule from consumer groups, from industry groups, and from people across the spectrum, all of whom are interested in the mortgage market, the real estate market, and all of whom, and we all feel the same way want to see it come back to life and to vibrancy. it's going to be important to the economic recovery. so this is an important statute. we want to get the rule in the right place. we're trying to b

frank, the promotion of u.s. prosperity going forward. and through the process of drafting the bill, a numb of revisions were adopted thanks to the thoughtful input of many of our colleagues. the definition of control, which is central to the issues of a legitimate interaffiliate transaction was clarified. anti-evasion measures were added so that the exemption would not lead to abuse. language was adopted that made sure standard authority over interaffiliate banks was preserved and it does nothing to end that. this is a good bill, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to back this legislation and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker and at this point i yield three minutes toe the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- three minutes to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. conaway: those swaps is an important tool for the companies to manage their risk. as a member of the house agriculture committee and

the incentive system because even if we do like the reforms that happen at places like the god frank reform bill it's what i think it's what is smaller than seventy percent of two hundred twenty five rules that have been scheduled to go into effect so far have already missed their deadline so you know a lot of people were not happy with that they think that it really didn't go far now if you're saying that maybe completely missed the mark but you know even in curtailing certain practices on last three this was more of a slap on the wrist and they still can't get that. well that's correct because unfortunately in france twenty three hundred pages it required you know thousands of more regulations to be written before anything can be really be implemented and that's what you see wall street having a tremendous influence in creating those new regulations and they're using all of their lobbying power that they have which is still tremendous in terms of trying to get watering down those regulations but what they're trying to do with the volcker rule that started as a three page document limiting the

sessions: the gentleman from arizona has a good bill and i encourage you to read it. mr. frank: i have read the bill, but to be told that we are going to in a party that says -- voted for regular order bring out a bill, 4088 has had no committee consideration whatsoever. the other bills have. the other five. but it's never been brought up in a hearing, it's never been in subcommittee, it's never been in committee. and the notion that it's a good bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very discouraging. this is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple weeks. and the gentleman says well, it's a good bill, read it. then i guess we don't need the committee. we don't need to do anything. but the process is supposed to be one where these things go through some vetting. so i am disappointed that we have a rule that brings a bill to the floor that literally has had no committee consideration whatsoever, brand new bill, apparently, because got a brand new sponsor. we have seen nothing like this. but i have seen no bill from the gentleman from arizona,

senior regulators explain the effect of the dodd-frank wall street bill. chairman martin gruenberg was among the featured speakers. this is about 40 minutes. >> this is theirs. >> okay. okay. i'd like to welcome everybody back for our afternoon program, please. we hope you enjoyed a good lunch. we've had a very interesting morning, we're delighted now to have the privilege and honor of hearing from chairman martin j. gruenberg, acting chairman of the federal deposit and insurance corporation, chairman gruenberg has a number of d distinctions but one of them which is relevant for today's event is that he worked very actively on the senate banking committee for a number of years, served under senator paul sarbanes, actively involved in the drafting of that statute, along with chairman gensel and professor goldsmith was involved. obviously steve harris also we've heard from this morning, so we have a number of folks with us this morning who are truly veterans of that effort and can give us some perspective on that statute. chairman gruenberg served on the sen

. -- the cumulative effect of the dodd-frank bill. recently, we have reached a milestone. we are a third of the way through. it was alarming to find that the regulators themselves published that it would take 22 million man hours per year to comply with the first 140 regulations. we are headed to a lot of compliance ellis. it was interesting to note that it only took 20 million man hours to build the panama canal. i would think that most people would agree that 20 million man hours spent -- greeted more economic opportunity than 22 million man hours compliant -- created more economic opportunity than 22 million man hours complying with regulations. i you concerned that this kind of burden -- are you concerned that this kind of burden is healthy? >> i do think it is important to point out what we are trying to prevent. we had a financial crisis that has created enormous amount of hardship. it is with some cost to make sure that does not happen again. yes, those regulations are costly. speaking for the fed, we have taken a lot of steps

courts all over this country trying to get the rules and regulations pursuant to the dodd-frank regulatory reform bill tried to get them stayed and thrown out of court. >> we'll get to that in a moment, but you are exactly right. but you have seen some public statements -- and trust me you know me i'm not justifying these executives. you have seen public statements where they acknowledge that they understand that the inequality baked into our economy and excesses at the top create a necessary and fundamental pushback. so is that the first to changes policies. >> eliot they understand what they need to say. they understand perhaps that the country is angry. but they don't get it in terms of fundamental change and reform. the federal reserve board just came out with its annual report saying that the biggest banks on wall street have to be broken up. can you imagine the dallas fed actually saying that. wall street doesn't want to be broken up. those same executives you say to them should you be broken up support a strong vocal rule? should you resurrect the glass spiegel act? they are going to say no. >>

. >> three american soldiers, tim josephs, frank rochelle, bill blazinski. called to arms nearly a half a century ago, from different backgrounds, but about to share an experience that would change each of their lives at edgewood arsenal military base in maryland. >> a couple of doctors from arsenal came and gave a presentation. >> they presented it as not everyone would be chosen. >> there would be a guaranteed three-day pass every weekend. >> three-day passes are the rule. >> no duties, no guard duty, no kitchen police. >> this is what we filled out. they ask you about your criminal background, they asked you if you drank, they asked you about your parents, they asked you about your brothers and your sisters. silly questions like, did you like your mother better than you did your father? >> well, i took the test and got chosen and you got a couple days off at home and then reported to edgewood for two months. >> when you got chosen, were you excited? >> yes, i was glad to go. it was like a plum assignment. you would get all the weekends off and the idea wa

tim josephs, frank richelle, bill blizinski. called to arms nearly half a century ago, with different backgrounds but about to share an experience that would change each of their lives. at edgewood arsenal military base in maryland. >> a couple doctors came and gave a presentation. >> they presented it as not everyone would be chosen. >> there would be a guaranteed three-day pass every weekend. >> no guard duty, no kitchen duty. >> this is what we filled out. they asked you about your criminal background, they asked you about your parents, if you drank, about your brothers and sisters. silly questions like, did you like your mother better than your father? >> i took the test and got chosen and you got a couple days off at home and then reported to edgewood for two months. >> when you got chosen, were you excited? >> yes. i was glad to go. it was like a plum assignment. you would get all the weekends off and the idea was that they would test new army field jackets, clothing, weapons, things of that nature. but no mention of any d

the number of people lobbying today on behalf of the financial industry to try to weaken dodd-frank, the bill passed after the disaster, outnumbers consumer, union, and other groups by a ratio of 25 to 1. the financial industry outspending everybody else 25 to 1 to try to weaken dodd-frank. >> i'm quite surprised that the political establishment would listen to groups that have been so discredited. >> you're saying despite what happened in 2008, wall street still has too much power? >> they have too much voice. they certainly are being listened to. i find it incredible. i would have guessed that society, at large, would have said, "hey, we made a mistake. let's get some rules." you know? i used to tell my kids, "why do you think a car has brakes?" and they all would say, "to stop." and i'd say, "no, a car has brakes so that you can drive fast. if you got into a car that had no brakes and you knew it, how fast do you think you would drive? you wouldn't drive very fast at all." and that's the same reason we have rules. you want the private sector to be free to be creative and exuberant and what

congress passed the dodd-frank bill. with more rules and regulations are an adequate substitute for enforcing existing laws. right now the cftc is writing new rules at a furious pace but in the case of mf global they failed to and force the most basic of rules that monitor commodities accounts. in your opinion, how do the new rules and regulations written by the cftc benefit producers of whirl areas that in many cases rely on small banks for credit? >> the expression is above my pay grade. >> can you answer nonetheless? >> i have been here for 20 years. i have been in the regulatory process for a long time. and i know that whenever bad things happen there's a tendency to write new rules and that is sometimes very helpful. the rules we are proposing are helpful. but ultimately it comes down to enforcement. i don't care what set of rules you have. at the end of the day it is about enforcement. that is true about the futures regulation area and will be true in the swaps area as well. >> should the cftc be focusing its effor

i think concerned with the dodd-frank regulatory bill.ople stopped paying attention to but the banks have thousands of people paying attention to every thrust of the battle what it is going to be. we had alex yeah goldstein on the show over one of the rules and that to me symbolized but also a very real example of a way to fight back against that. mike, i wanted to ask you since you're someone who has taken an issue from being obscure and sort of seen it through to being popularized which is the working conditions of people making the products that apple sells, if i ask a question of how do you shed light on something like that? how do you bring the obscure thing into people's consciousness? >> i think that, you know, the key or part of the key for at least for the issues i was looking at was the idea that ideas that work are viral. you need an idea to be embedded in story. at least maybe because i'm a story teller. that's the way that i'm most attracted to things. stories are naturally social media. >> first social media? >> the central

yes, no, qualified yes, no, from -- see if you -- >> i think the dodd-frank bill provided greater oversight too. many other factors in play. >> i agree. many crucial elements of dodd-frank could have helped to ease some parts, but at the same time perhaps you would be looking at the higher cost of capital, which may or may not have been desirable. >> i'll pose the question to you. >> i agree. dodd-frank would not have stopped it. >> so we haven't even won the last war. >> dodd-frank happened after we lost the last war. >> no more generals. okay. >> i think the more important -- from a global perspective, 2003 important because they're saying banks should carry adequate capital to ensure that if you have something go wrong, they remain solvent. and you need to reduce the leverage you have in your system to ensure that when a shock hits, it's not too big. so, while we tend to look at what has been going on with dodd-frank, i think the 3 accord is a more usualful device. >> now, everybody knows what happened between t.a.r.p. one and t.a.r.p. two, and eventually it was passed, thankfully, and t

frank was passed. president obama has signaled he'll sign the bill as well. >>> a group that includes former lakers star stan kaston agreed to buy the los angeles dodgers from frank mccourt for a record $2 billion. the dodgers said mccourt and certain affiliates of the purchasers would acquire the land surrounding dodgers stadium including the parking lots for $150 million. we know what kind of cash flow comes from the parking lots but for a team or a city that's been through a lot having magic's name attached to the dodgers after all this time, david, might be a big sigh of relief. >> it may be. of course, the regional sports network and what they can do there. but the number is unbelievable. you had another group come in, these guys knocked it out of the park to use a baseball analogy that they just stopped the auction. it's almost twice what's been paid for any other sports franchise. more than twice what was paid for the chicago cubs a few years ago. the number is staggering, carl, and by the way, this was a bankruptcy, but one in which if you had bought the equity, you'd have a huge return, frank m

interesting start off to be bipartisan, and now i just heard that both president obama and the dodd-frank bill caused this problem, and i would like any member here that has any information whatsoever that the justice department, the cftc or any other agency has given mr. karzai nor anyone else a pass on the investigation related to this because if you do, i would like to see if it would be another matter we don't have. i would like to know if dodd-frank caused the problem, then what caused lehman brothers? i know we are here to make political points. i'm a politician, too. but let's stick to the matter at hand. if you know, go to the justice department and tell them. if you want to make political points, held in the hall -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i sure do. >> i appreciate you yielding. i'm quoting the commissioner at the cftc. it is his observation since the dodd-frank act came into law the commission has acted in this way. it is his observation that it has concentrated on swaps rulemaking while averting its gaze -- >> [inaudible] >> i'd be happy to join the gentleman to direct him