tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 11, 2018 1:40pm-3:41pm EDT
states makes sense. if there was something to go to to have a nations, multilateral coalition to respond to chemical strikes, that should be debated and considered. oppose a unilateral strike and oppose a unilateral strike without consultation with congress. i was just on a letter, thomas ,assie has done a great job with a letter to the president saying any strike in syria would be unconstitutional. host: rachel, democrats line. caller: good morning. from the hearing yesterday, it was fascinating -- my question is what do you think of the tech leaders getting together with congress and creating a bill of rights? thank you. guest: >> we'll leave this discussion here and return to live coverage of the u.s. house. taken in the
following order. ordering the previous question on house resolution 811 and adoption of house resolution 811 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question house resolution 811. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 137, house resolution 811, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4790 to amend the volcker rule to give the board of governors sole rulemaking authority to exclude community banks of requirements of the volcker rule and for other purposes and providing for consideration on motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering of the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a
15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?
mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration by this chamber. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 816, resolved, that the following named members be and is hereby -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. is correct. the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 816, resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on rules, mrs. torres. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. please take conversations off the floor. without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 780 i call up h.r. 4293 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 451. h.r. 4293, a bill to reform the comprehensive capital analysis and review process, the dodd-frank act stress test process, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 780 in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 115-63 modified by the amendment printed in part b of house report 115-600 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please take all conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise today in very strong support of h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act of 2017. i want to thank the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, who is a real workhorse on the financial services committee and a real leader in trying to ensure that we have affordable credit for our constituents so
they can achieve the american dream. and in his legislation, he will bring clarity and reasonableness to the stress test regime. the bank has two legally mandated stress tests and together these two programs constitute one of the greatest expansion of the federal reserve's supervisory powers in recent history. but what's important to note, mr. speaker, in addition to these mandated stress tests, banks conduct stress tests every single week on some asset class or another. it's important. it's important to know how nks can withstand tough, stormy financial weather but the as taking place to either tests. what's happening, mr. speaker, these tests are incredibly
onerous to where the reports are not just measured in the pages, they're measured in the pounds and it's doubtful anyone actually reads them. then to compound the challenge, mr. speaker, the federal reserve's stress tests have become kind of a cat and mouse exercise in which the fed staff and compliance officers attempt to outwit each other in a game that has no rules and no transparency. in other words, it's a secret test. no one really knows what's on it. it's difficult for congress, it's difficult for the market to even assess whether or not these tests are effective. mr. speaker, it's very important to note, if you don't know what's on the test, how can you adhere to the rule of law if you don't know what the law is? and so something really needs to change here. it's fortunate that yesterday, yesterday the federal reserve finally took actions to begin
to simplify the ccar stress testing regime, recognizing the capacity of the stress test regime, one said in a statement, quote, regulatory measures are most effective when there is a simple and transparent as possible. i couldn't agree more. as does the gentleman from new york as well. but unfortunately, mr. speaker, this particular proposal is somewhat modest in its attempt to simplify the process. it does follow the results of a review undertaken by former fed chair yellen which found a need to reduce the burden resulting from stress testing requirements. almost everybody agrees with that, especially on our smaller financial institutions. and so that's one more reason why this is needed. so i'm glad the federal reserve recognizes the need to reform the stress test regime because,
again, it contributes to a climate of legal and regulatory uncertainty when the rule of law is so critical to the foundation of our society and it's so critical to economic growth. but in light of the fed's announcement yesterday, it's also important to point out what the fed did can easily be undone. next week, next month, or next year. that's why it's critical that congress, congress has to make acts -- has to make improvements in the stress testing regime permanent, especially for the ccar process, which is not, i repeat, not a creation of statute. the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, has come up, again, with just the right bill, h.r. 4293, and it will help provide a commonsense and oh, by the way, bipartisan, a bipartisan reform that will inject badly needed accountability,
transparency, and targeted relief to reduce legal and regulatory uncertainty for financial institutions. you know, why is this important, mr. speaker? at the end of the day, it's not really the banks that are the subject of these regulations. at the end of the day, it's their customers, and what this committee and what this house has to do is ensure there is affordable and available credit to help fund people's american dreams. you know, i heard from a gentleman by the name of john from mesquite, texas. he said credit helped me buy my first home and 13 years later i'm still in it. it's grown from one child to four. ran into bad times but was able to withstand it all with the help of the available credit lines that i had at the time. without the credit it would have been nearly impossible to still be where me and my family
are today. that's why it's so important, mr. speaker. people need credit to pay their bills, to buy their homes, to pay for their car repairs and all of these regulations, the regulatory onslaught that's been taking place for almost a decade makes that credit less available, more expensive. it shrinks the american dream, and we can't allow that to happen on our watch, mr. speaker. that's why it is so important that we bring some rationality to the stress test so that hopefully people like john in mesquite can continue to get that line of credit, and that's why it's so important that we all vote for h.r. 4293 today, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield to myself as much time as i may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: i rise to oppose h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act, which is designed to line wall street's pockets by weakening a critical tool to prevent a future financial crisis. banks' stress tests are a forward-looking tool where a hypothetical scenario or to test it, such as, how would a megabank fair if a major recession occurred next year with unemployment and foreclosures going way up? these tests incredibly they are very helpful to see if banks might maintain more capital to help buffer against such a scenario. these are similar to crash tests for cars where a manufacture runs their cars
through crash test simulations to see if passengers will remain safe in various kinds of crashes. such testing provides valuable sights regarding what design adjustments need to be made to ensure the car is as safe as possible. at how take a look the safeguard developed. when president obama took office, his administration inherited an economy in free-fall with about 800,000 jobs lost that very month and many wondered how many more financial firms might fail, so treasury secretary geithner worked with the federal reserve and together they designed the supervisory capital assessment program.
these stress tests checked how resilient the largest banks were if this economy continued to deteriorate. results for publish and we learned that 10 of the 19 participating firms were collectively about $75 billion short of the required capital ratios. these tests provided critical transparency to the market, thereby enabling the banks to begin recapitalizing themselves with new funds from investors who themselves had renewed confidence in the banking ndustry. following this this success, congress decided to mandate these stress tests to be regularly required of the ladge largest banks in dodd-frack this would ensure banks an their regulators remain vigilant especially when times were good so they could spot problems much earlier and take corrective action.
the federal reserve implemented these dodd-frank stress tests alongside their comprehensive capital analysis and review, which added a capital planning component to the test. according to credit rating agencies and financial analysis, these stress tests, along with dodd-frank's other enhanced prudential rirptes of the largest banks, made our financial system much safer. let me give you some numbers. since 2009, the 34 largest banks have increased their capital by $750 billion, bringing the industry's total capital buffer to nearly $2 trillion today that is a $ 50 billion in more high quality funding that banks can safely lend and invest, which helps explain why business lending has also increased almost 80% the last eight years.
ut h.r. 4293, this bill, would undermine all of that and proposes three changes that mega banks like wells fargo would love to see. fist, the bank would eliminate the adverse scenario from fed-run stress tests but like in car crash tests, multiple scenarios can help ensure an institution can survive a wider range of unforeseen events. second, the bill would bar the fed from making qualitative objections to a bank's capital plan, even the federal reserve led by president trump's appointees issued a lengthy proposal yesterday altering some of the stress testing rules and their proposal maintains that their ability to make qualitative objections. so there's no basis for congress
to unilaterally make it harder for regulators to ensure mega banks are well run and capitalized. and third, the bill would allow the wall streeting me fwa banks to conduct fewer company run stress tests annually instead of semiannually but given how quickly tides can shift, routine, semiannual testing can better identify problems. before they grow into larger problems. as a former federal reserve official wrote last year, had stress tests as conducted now been in place before the crisis, they could have made firms more resilient to unexpected losses and at a minimum would have given supervisors the ability to question banks' continued dividend and share of buybacks in the quarters leading to the height of the crisis. accordingly, i strongly urge members to reject this rollback
for wall street mega banks and let me just add by say, why would we do this? why would we know, knowing what we went through in 2008, where we had the subprime meltdown, went into a recession, almost a depression, and we discovered that the banks were undercapitalized and they could t deal with this kind of change in the economy, they could not deal with the fact that something had gone wrong and be prepared to deal with it rather than us strog bail them out in the way that we did. i don't know why we would do this now and so i would simply ask members to ask the question, why is it we would take away something that would make the bank safer? that would make them more stable? that would make them able to be able to sustain despite the fact that there was a crisis
developing in the economy? why would we want to take away this safety -- that we have built with stress testing? so with that, i ask the members to reject this rollback for wall street mega banks and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield six minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, again a hardworking member of the house financial services committee and the bill's sponsor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for six minutes. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to the chairman asle with for all of his great leadership and mentorship throughout this process to get this bill to the floor today. i'm rising in strong support of h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act. it's critical, bipartisan legislation that injects transparency, consistency, and fairness into the stress testing
process. i especially want to thank my bipartisan supporter, partner, on this important bill, congressman david scott of georgia. stress tests are one of the aspects of current law that are contributing to the climbing of legal and regulatory uncertainty because the federal reserve failed to provide the necessary transparency around this process. a stress test is a financial analysis performed internally by financial institution or done externally by a regulator to assess if a bank can withstand stressful economic conditions. stress tests, when done correctly are an important way for banks and regulators to understand the ability of financial institutions to survive a contracting economy or weather a major economic storm like a recession. ensuring that these tests are done right with fairness and objectivity is essential for protecting depositors in the
overall financial system. that is why passing the reforms in this bill should be a priority on both sides of the aisle. working together on a bipartisan basis, mr. scott offered an amendment to this bill that was accepted unanimously by members of the financial services committee, including the ranking member, and his bill cleared a committee markup with a bipartisan vote of 28-3 1. by focusing the bill on three reforms we are protecting the the process to protect soundness in the banking system while also reforming the unintended consequences and overreach of dodd-frank. by striking the adverse scenario requirement from stress testing, these important tests can focus on real world conditions to protect financial institutions and the customers they serve from threats to the stability of the financial system. by repealing the ability of the federal restoverb reject a
company's capital plan based solely on a qualitative stress test, we are making the process more transparent and fair. this legislation ends the ability of regulators to arbitrarily reject a financial institutions capital plan without feedback or constructive criticism. these secretive rejections by regulators have done little to protect consumers and inserted more, not less, uncertainty into the financial system. by eliminating the mid cycle review and shifting from biannual to annual stress testing requirements, we are lessening the compliance tax that has raised the cost of lending and hurt consumers who have lost access to the small business loans or mortgages that help finance their american dream. without need red form rather than ensuring financial stability, the federal reserve stress tests are likely missing real risks while constraining the competitive flow of financial services that's critical to increasing economic
opportunity. while a valuable resource, stress tests result -- stress test results may be creating a false sense of security while at the same time sowing the seeds of financial instability. in order to succeed, a stress test must build from an accurate forecast of the next macroeconomic storm and even the best forecasts tend to be wrong. the stress test improvement act will make stress testing more effective by making the rules more transparent and fair. we're not getting standards but making them work for the real world. this bill is a bipartisan team effort to accomplish these goals. without trands paraphernaliacy about what the stress testing rules are, there's no way to ensure the government plays by the rules. by subjecting financial institutions to a questionable regime that lacks accountability and transparency, regulators are failing to achieve the important goals that they are tasked with, ensuring safety and soundness. with the critical reforms in this legislation, we are
upholding sensible standards for financial institutions while clarifying the requirements for and the frequency of stress tests. to the hard working men and women in my district and nationwide, it is a common sense -- it is common sense that banks ought to know the standards and tests that regulators are subjecting them. to by injecting this transparency and consistency into the strets test regular jet stream, we are taking needed capital off the sidelines so it can be invested in the private economy to create jobs and wealth. i want to thank chairman hensarling and luetkemeyer for their leadership on this important issue. i also want to thank my democratic partner on thisport bill, david scott. with that, i urge adoption of this bill and yield back the balance of my timele the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman -- ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to
yield three minutes to the gentlelady from utah, ms. love. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from utah is recognized for three minutes. ms. love: thank you, mr. speaker. when it comes to bank regulation the job of the regulator is to balance the need for economic growth with the safety and the soundness of financial systems. with fresh memories of the most recent financial crisis, it's natural for regulators to aeroon the side of being overly cautious so they aren't blamed when something goes wrong. unfortunately, this has led to a situation in which regulators are evaluating stress tests based on subjective and unclear standards. the stress tests are opaque. it's like asking banks to kick a field goal where they -- when they don't know where the posts are. what's more, the regulators keep ratcheting up the standards. for the stress test to achieve their goal, however, the goal of keeping the financial system safe and sound, they need to be transparent and they need to be
fair. h.r. 4293, a bill with bipartisan support, would improve the stress testing process for bank holding companies by repealing the ability of the regulators to reject a financial institution's stress test based on subjective and opaque standards. another important improvement to the process would be the elimination of overly burdensome mid cycle review by shifting from biannual to annual stress testing requirements. these reforms would make it easy. easier for congress, the markets, and the public to access both the integ -- to assess both the integrity of the find ogs they have stress test and the effectiveness of the fed's regulatory oversight. some critics, nonetheless, have claimed this bill would weaken dodd-frank. on the contrary, h.r. 4293 would improve the flawed standards of dodd-frank and strengthen the
stress testing process to ensure that it produces the results we seek. a safer, more stable financial system. i thank my colleagues from new york, lee zeldin and congressman david scott, for supporting this bill and i urge my colleagues to support this bill, thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker and members, again i rise the -- i raise the question f why is it this bill that would reduce the amount of the -- the amount of scrutiny we have with this stress testing from the biggest banks in america when in fact we know that this stress testing was created because of the problem
that we were faced with in 2008. we learned an awful lot about what we should not do and what we should change in order never to be in the position again where we have to bail out all of these big banks. we're simply saying banks, you have to be tested. you have to have a stress test to see if you can withstand the difficulty that will be presented if in fact the economy gets in trouble. it's as simple as that. o you have enough capital? are you organized in such a way that you won't go under, that you won't create a problem in our economy because of the size of your bank if you get in trouble? and so i would simply ask our members to reject this bill because this bill is not needed.
it's simply a way by which to comply with the megabanks' requests to not have to do the work that's necessary to prove that they are safe. and i don't know why we would do that, so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i am happy to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, another hardworking member of the house financial services committee, ms. teny. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. teny -- and nney: i want to rise stand in support of h.r. 4293. we keep hearing about megabanks. l banks affect industry, large and small industries.
every time we adjust the marketplace and meng regulations, you impact small businesses as well. as an owner of a small business this affects me as well. stress testing is an important rule that can encourage the safety and soundness of an individual depository institution and the overall of the bank institution including all banks across all sizes and sectors. the federal reserve imposes unnecessary burdens without providing proportionate benefits. this is especially true for which the cost of this exercise is burdensome but it can affect larger banks. to 4293 would fix the test strengthen a financial institution's planning. this improves the federal reserve stress testing processes mandated by the dodd-frank act by selecting bank holding companies to
conduct internal company run stress tests once a year rather than semi annually. i want to thank, again, mr. zeldin, for sponsoring this, as always, a bipartisan piece of legislation. important to note, if we are going to reduce regulations and burdensome fees and procedures on companies, it has to be across all sectors, not just one. i think this legislation shows that and shows the sponsor's willingness to do that and i thank him and i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and i yield the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members. i'd like to share with you communications workers memorandum to us, a letter to us, rather, on h.r. 4293, and they state that h.r. 4293 would undermine the effectiveness of
the federal reserve's comprehensive capital analysis nd review, that is ccar, stress test. it would prohibit the federal reserve from objecting to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative reasons such as the reasonableness of the assumptions and analysis underlying the plan. the bill would also cut the frequency of ccar tests in half. taking away tools and reducing the amount of information available to the federal reserve about bank health and is a fundamentally bad idea. and really, it is basically what we have been saying. we have been saying that this would reduce the stress tests to an annual ly test. why would you want to have less
scrutiny of these bankses? why would you want to reduce the amount of time they would have relative to being able to prove that they are safe? and also i think it is very important what is being said here about the fed and the fed's ability to basically review on the basis of qualitative reasons such as reasonableness and other assumptions and analysis underlying the plan. and so they're looking to see f these banks are well -capitalized, if these banks can withstand, again, problems in our economy that would arise, that could create unemployment and all kind of other adverse conditions. and so i would ask the members to oppose this bill. this is just another deregulation bill for the biggest banks in america, and
we should not be doing that because these are the banks that if they are undercapitalized, if they don't have what is needed to withstand problems in our society that could arise in the economy, it could cause us to go into another recession, even a depression, perhaps. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, who is the chairman of our financial services subcommittee on monetary policy and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for the recognition and for the author of this legislation, mr. zeldin, for his leadership on the stress test improvement act which i strongly support. mr. speaker, the federal
reserve administers two stress tests they believe analyzes economic turbulence. while the fed failed to sound the alarm before the last financial crisis, the thought is these stress tests, which was in the dodd-frank financial control law, the fed could mitigate the severity of the next crisis. mr. barr: i believe stress tests can be productive and useful but there is such a thing called overkill. when a relatively healthy patient goes to the doctor, the doctor typically doesn't say, and you need to go to another doctor and you need to come see me again every month. that's really not required. it adds costs. 's redundant, it's duplicative and the analogy applies to banks. ress testing is good but
overtesting is overkill. there is merit to stress testing but there is doubt -- but there is no doubt that the cloud of secrecy surrounding these tests confounds the ability of banks to take corrective action, to chart a more sustainable or profitable path for the future. many banks are left trying to anticipate these fed models, wasting valuable time and resources that could be used to actually address risks that threaten our economy. so this environment of regulatory uncertainty actually, i would argue, undermines financial stability because it distracts from the mission of the institution and it certainly is costly in terms of driving up costs and taking away access to capital for productive activities that actually strengthen the economy. for these reasons, i'm a proud supporter of this bill which is a great first step to clean up the regulatory uncertainty surrounding these tests. first, it reduces the frequency of the required run stress test once per year. one is enough to look at risks
instead of two. nd elimb flatting redundancy and superfluous activity. and it won't be on unknown qualitative reasons. these institutions need to know what the fed is looking for in order to staff the stress testing that's applied to them. again, i applaud congressman zeldin and chairman hensarling for their hard work on this commonsense regulatory improvement bill. it's not deregulation. it's better regulation. it's more effective regulation to not only unleash greater capital into the economy but actually enhance financial stability. so for those reasons, mr. speaker, on behalf of the american economy, i urge -- and for financial stability, i urge my colleagues to vote for the stress test improvement act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from extrais recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much .
mr. speaker and members, i don't know what this overkill argument is all about. this is about deregulation. the banks -- these megabanks don't need any more deregulation or help from congress. in 2016, the industry made record breaking profits, more than $170 billion in profits. the republicans gave the eight largest wall street banks a $15 billion windfall from their tax scam bill, and c.e.o.'s are making more money on wall street, as much as they made in 2006, before they drove our economy into a massive ditch. megabanks need reasonable but strong stress tests to keep our economy safe. and i want to tell you, after dodd-frank reforms were put in place and the stress tests were one of the things that had to
be done, the banks resisted it but finally they came into compliance. and it took them several years. and then they did the way that dodd-frank would have them do it. so there is no problem. these stress tests now are stress tests that reveal exactly what's going on in the bank. and so why are we trying to undo? why do you want to see them once a year than twice a year? twice a year proves we can keep them straight, that we can make sure that they're well -capitalized, make sure they have a good financial plan. let's not get involved in more deregulation and take us back to where we were when we got in trouble in 2008. i would ask the members to vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves.
ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, might i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 5 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i listened very carefully to the distinguished ranking member who observed that our banks have more capital today, and this is a good thing, to the extent that dodd-frank had anything to do with it, i would say congratulations to the dodd-frank act. but i also noticed that many -- for many of us, many of our banks are still undercapitalized, and the ranking member had every opportunity to vote for the financial choice act that would require 10 -- 10%, far more capital than these banks that she's concerned about failing today but she rejected that. she often uses the phrase "wall
street megabanks," but it's her side of the aisle that supports a taxpayer bailout fund for what she calls the wall street megabanks. that comes from our friends on that side of the aisle, mr. speaker, not this side. she says we have to bail out these banks. no, we don't have to. we don't have to. we should support bankruptcy. bankruptcy over bailout, and we should support high levels of capital over incredibly intrusive federal control. federal control that ultimately gets resolved into less credit and more expensive credit for many of our constituents. and, again, mr. speaker, i would add banks have stress test themselves long before the appearance of dodd-frank. long before the appearance of dodd-frank. and in fact, stress tests are
taking place on some group of assets at every bank in america every day. many, many banks, particularly the larger banks, may do up to 200 stress tests a week. what the gentleman from new york is trying to do is add some level of clarity and sanity and reasonableness to the federally instituted ccar process. something that can take terally 40,000 pages, 40,000 pages, can tens of millions if not over $100 million to produce that could have been sed to lone to our constituents, to buy a car, to put groceries on their table, to pay for their health care premiums. and so some say, well, these
tests have to be conducted semiannually. what's wrong with annually? what's sacrosanct about semiannually? why are we testing for worst-case scenario and some mid-scenario? ok. either you are going to survive the 100-year flood or not. if you can survive the 100-year flood surely you can survive the 50-year flood. what we are hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle, oh, my god, we can't question the federal regulators. they come from mount olympus. they have this great wisdom that we can never challenge them. well, the truth is we're article 1 of the constitution, and we are the ones who make the law and that is why we have hearings and we listen very closely. we listen closely to our regulators. we listen closely to our constituents. we listen closely to market participants, and then we make judgments, we make judgments
and so, yes, there is a balance. there is a balance between economic opportunity and financial stability. we want there to be strong financial stability, but we want -- also, also want there to be strong, strong economic opportunity for all, all of our constituents, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members. i would like it share with you the opinions of former chair, janet yellen, who has stated that stress testing improvs public understanding of riss -- improves public understanding of risk at large banking firms, provides a forward-looking examination of firms, potential losses and has contributed to significant improfmente in risk management -- improvment of risk management. former chair ben bernanke has praised stress testing for
playing a crucial role in the recovery of the economy and creating a more resilient ostcrisis u.s. banking system. this bill severely weakens this key element of bank oversight and must be rejected. we cannot ignore the analyses being given by these form fed chairs. i mean, they are saying do not be tricked, do not be fooled. that this is a deceptive bill and that stress testing must continue in order to ensure the stability of our banks in the event the economy goes awry. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased now to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, the democratic co-sponsor of this legislation, a proud member of
the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much, chairman hensarling. and certainly to my distinguished ranking member, who has some very serious concerns. but i want to take a moment to explain that the bill is basically my bipartisan amendment that mr. zeldin and i worked on, that passed in committee. and i think it's very important for me to work through this, to explain how it will not effect, as my ranking member asks, however i want to make sure that people know we've got things in here to address. it keeps in tact the essence of what we were trying to accomplish with stress tests in dodd-frank. now, my amendment essentially rewrote this bill, as i said, so
that we have -- are left with just three simple things, tweeks that we are making. the first one is in today's ccar test, banks are now required to run stress tests that have, one, a baseline adverse, or, and a severely adverse scenario -- or/and a severely adverse scenario. my amendment simply removes the adverse requirement. and why is that? because in talking about how we can stimulate more growth for our banks, while at the same time maintaining the proper stress tests, we heard that the adverse scenario rarely proved or shared any light on the health of the bank that isn't already shown when testing a bank for severely adverse scenario. so we didn't need the other one. if one is doing.
and so we eliminated that. secondly, my amendment eliminated the fed's ability to reject a capital plan solely on what we refer to as the qualitative portion of the test. now, mr. speaker, we did this because stress tests are a test of both the banks' books, which are the quantitative side, and the test of the banks' internal controls, which is the qualitative side. so rejecting a capital plan solely on the qualitative portion of the test generates a lot of uncertainty within our banking system for banks. and it is something something that the federal regulators already earlier last year stopped requiring the banks under $250 million from having to do.
so we simply removed that. and then lastly, my amendment eliminated the midyear test that banks are required to do internally. why did we do that? because right now if you are a bank above a certain asset size, you are required to do internal tests. my amendment just changes this so that the tests are done once a year. mr. hensarling: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it, mr. chairman. because, mr. speaker, i want to urge my colleagues who are looking at this, that i very carefully listened to my ranking member and i made sure, when we worked it in the process, that we adhere to that. no phase of this stress test is eliminated. and the thing i want to add, over in the senate, in the reg bill, 2155, two of the three parts of this bill and my
amendment are already in senate bill 2155. which received 67 bipartisan supports. so it is with gracious affection to my ranking member, because oftentimes we have to work together, and respect to my chairman that i urge all our members to -- both democrats and republicans -- to support this very important and worthwhile legislation. the speaker pro tempore: have the time of the gentleman from georgia has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i'd like to inquire if mr. hensarling is ready to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from
pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, who serves as our vice chairman of the financial services subcommittee on financial institutions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. rothfus: i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise to express my support for h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act. i also want to commend my colleague, representative zeldin, for his work on this important issue. those of us who travel our districts to speak with the men and women who work at financial institutions are well aware of the high cost and lack of clarity in the stress test process. companies are being forced to dedicate substantial resources and immense amounts of time to go through the comprehensive capital analysis and review or ccar in the dodd-frank stress tests. i have spoken to compliance staff, reported submissions in the tens of thousands of pages. for each dollar or staffer put towards a ccar, there are fewer resources being dedicated to innovation or helping customers. of course we all believe that
stress tests can and should be useful experiences. some of the information turned up in stress tests could be helpful. but we are desperately in need to enact meaningful reform to provide better transparency, clarity and reduce undue burden. columbia university professor described the process as one in which, quote, regulators punish banks for failing to meet standards that are never stated. let me repeat that. failing to meet standards that are never stated. it's sort of a creature of our bureaucracy. mr. zeldin's bill improves the stress testing process by requiring the federal reserve to follow regular notice and common practices, and issue clear regulations on economic conditions and methodologies and to assess the effectiveness of the fed's models. it also alleviates the compliance burden on firms by spacing out ccar's. these are targeted, reasonable reforms that can greatly improve
the process. this will enhance, not hurt, financial stability, and leave us with a healthier, more vibrant economy. again, i urge my colleagues to support this stress test improvement act, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. i have no further requests for time and i'm prepared to close. i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 15 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: thank you. mr. speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to focus on pushing through giveaways to wall street and megabanks like wells fargo, that could be harmful to consumers, investors and our nation's economy. week after week republicans advance legislation that is basically reckless and misguided. h.r. 4293 is yet another bad bill from the republicans that weakens critical protections put
in place by democrats to prevent another financial crisis, as we have -- crisis. as we have discussed, the bill undermines the stress test framework for our nation's largest banks. stress tests are an important regulatory tool that have much improved the state of -- the safety of our financial system. mr. speaker, when we crafted dodd-frank, we mandated these stress tests and put in place other enhanced prudential guardrails for large banks to not only prevent damage to our economy, but also help grow our economy. and they are working. but h.r. 4293 weakens the rigor and frequency of these stress tests. a move that simply makes no sense. rather than harmful measures such as this one, congress should be working to strengthen consumer protections, reform our broken system of credit reporting, provide tailored, responsible relief for community banks, and ensure that
recidivist megabanks are held accountable for breaking the law. i would urge a no vote on this bill and i would urge members, again, to simply ask the question, why at this point in basically we want to duce the ability for us to know exactly what's going on in those banks, whether or not they're fully capitalized, whether they can withstand a serious problem in our economy? and i don't think that the opposite side of the aisle, my friends, could really answer that question. because this is simply a deregulatory bill for the biggest banks in america, for the megabanks. not needed and certainly we need the information. we never want to go through a period of time like we did in 2008, where we discovered that
our banks were not well capitalized and could not withstand the problems that we encountered. so i would simply ask all members to oppose this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close debate for the majority. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. well, the ranking member poses the question why. i can tell you why, mr. speaker. it's because ter he's from waco has written, i would like to express my disappointment at being rejected for a home loan which would cost less than the house i presently have been renting for five years. as a small business owner i run my design studio out of my home office and take every tax break that is legal to offset the taxes payable if i didn't.
we do it for sherry. who write, after a divorce four years ago, i needed to buy a car because my car was over 10 years old. i have a checking account in my name, i have a savings account, but they did not loan me money. there is an onslaught of financial regulation that is costly, intrusive, burdensome and is causing credit to be less available. less available to the people who need it. that's why we do this, mr. speaker. week after week after week we do it to make sure that our constituents can buys home, that they can have -- can buy homes, that they can have cars, if they lose a job or go through a painful divorce, that's why we do it, mr. speaker. and again, stress tests are important. it's why banks do it themselves
every single week. but the question is, how do we calibrate this? we have used the ranking member's predescription and that of my friends on the other side the aisle and it brought us 1.6% economic growth. thankfully today with a new congress, with a new president, we have 3% economic growth and all types of opportunities are coming. we should not listen and go back to those days. it is time to go forward to a better america, with greater opportunity for all americans, and that means we have to, have to reform the stress tests to ensure that not only do we have financial stability, but we have financial opportunity as well. that is the work of the gentleman from new york. and i urge everyone to support h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act of 2017. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all
the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill to reform the comprehensive analysis and review process, the dodd-frank stress test and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed? ms. waters: in its current form, i am. the clerk: ms. waters moves to recommit the bill to the committee on financial services with instructions to report same back to the house with the following amendment. and two, line seven, strike -- ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be
waived. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will reserve judgment. is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading is dispensed. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. is waters: mr. speaker, this the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, we have talked at length about how h.r. 4293 is a bill for wall street megabanks to line their pockets while reducing safeguards that better protect the main street economy. while i deeply disagree with the bill's approach, i offer this motion to recommit not in a manner that send the bill to the committee and kill the bill, but
rather to attempt to improve the bill before the house votes on final passage of the measure. we all know mega banks have been given a free ride in washington for far too long when it comes to repeated egregious offices. they get a fine, a slap on the wrist for harming consumers. nce 2010, megabanks have had $160 billion worth of fines and keep breaking the law. we talk about illegal actions that have harmed millions of consumers. sure, they have been fined, even $1 billion in fines are the cost of doing business for a company that made over $22 billion in profits in 2017. this soft enforcement approach is increasing their operational risk and losses, which, at the
end of the day, will impact not only all of their customers but the broader economy as well. i hope republicans and democrats can all agree that any megabank that engages in a pattern or practice of unsafe or unsound banking practices and other egregious violations that has resulted in profound consumer harm in the last 10 years is not entitled to any benefit of regulatory relief provided under this bill. especially, regulatory relief that would eliminate the type of oversight that makes sure our economy stays safe. o my amendment would exclude a megabank like wells fargoao that opened millions of accounts, enrolled consumers in life insurance policies without their consent and forced nearly a million americans to purchase auto insurance they didn't need.
since 2016, i have been calling for wells fargoo to face real penalties. introduced h.r. 3937, the megabank accountability and consequences act to compel the federal bank regulators to utilize existing authorities to op megabanks from respeeding louching the law and harming millions of americans. i was glad to see janet yellen take bold action to cap the bank size until it cleans up its act. we must send a strong message that there will be real consequences for their bad actions that mislead, abuse or deceive its customers. h.r. 4293 in its current form ould send the opposite message to megabanks for the hard work
we have done. so i would urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to recommit so we do not reward a megabank like wells fargoo for repeated operational failures that ripped off millions of consumers. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, as the ranking member talks about the hundreds of millions of dollars of fines that these have have paid, who violated provisions of civil law, maybe that means the system is working. that's what ought to happen to wrongdoers. there ought to be fines. no one, no one can defend what
happened atwells fargoo. fargoo.- at wells i hope they are cleaning up what has been a mess that has harmed consumers for many, many years. i know that wells fargo has been fined half a billion already. their former c.e.o. had $75 million clawed back in compensation. they lost $29 billion of market value. and investigations are ongoing, as it well should be. but i would point out that our prudential regulators continue to have full authority to enforce all of our consumer protection laws. the alternative mortgage parity act, the electronic funds act,
the fair credit billing act. and when they find violations, people are fined, as they well should be. but what we're talking about once again is trying to create economic opportunity for all those who need it to make credit more available and less expensive for people who are trying to buy a home, repair a car and put groceries on the table. and what the gentleman from new york is saying again when it comes to a federally imposed stress test after hours and hours of testimony, we believe that maybe that test ought to be administered annually instead of semi-annually. that would be a better balance. that's what is happening from the gentleman from new york and what the ranking member's motion to recommit to do and remain
fully in effect. they are working, so i urge rejection of the motion to recommit. i urge adoption of h.r. 4293, the stress test improvement act of mr. zeldin of new york. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the nos have it. ms. waters: ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr.
hensarling seek recognition? mr. hensarling: pursuant to house resolution 780 i ask for h.r. 4061 and ask for its immediate action in the house. the clerk: a bill to amend the financial stability act of 2010 to improve the financial stability of the oversight council and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 780, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-64 modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 115-600 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members may
have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. hensarling: i rise today in and i wanth.r. 4061, to commend two friends. mr. ross of florida on the republican side of the aisle and mr. delaney for their collective leadership on bringing forth this truly bipartisan bill. a strong bipartisan, which has 58 different co-sponsors, half from each side of the aisle. before talking about the bill, there has been a lot of news today, mr. speaker and part of
the news that i just could not overlook is the fact that my dear friend and colleague from florida announced that he would be retiring at the end of this congress. i do want to say what a pleasure and honor it has been to work with the gentleman from florida. i have appreciated his leadership. i have appreciated his knowledge. i have appreciated his calm demeanor and his ability to further strong bipartisan measures that will help create greater credit opportunities for hard-working americans. i would say i will miss him, but i will be gone as well. and maybe he will invite me to the florida coast for deep-sea fishing and i look forward to receiving that invitation at the appropriate time. now back to business, mr. speaker. the financial stability
filing. council is it beyond and went far just concocted incredibly irrational speculative scenarios about sectors of the financial markets that had nothing, nothing to do with the financial crisis and in turn, they caused more harm to the financial system than added stability. this bill does not, does not strip the ability to designate to designate a nonbank financial company. frankly, mr. speaker, it would be a better bill if it did. and also wouldn't be a bipartisan bill. this is not what this bill is trying to do. it brings needed transparency and accountability to the designation process. mr. ross and mr. delaney in h.r.
4061, they do this by reversing that presumption that government bureaucrats should dictate the business models in private businesses and requiring them to approach the potential designation by encouraging companies to address the risk prior, prior to designating them as sifis in order to reduce systemic risk. all this is saying is a nonbank financial institution that the financial stability oversight council feels may be creating undue risk in the system, give them the opportunity to remedy that before you designate them a too big to fail institution. at least give them an opportunity to remedy the risk that you are concerned about. what could be more common sense?
what could be more reasonable? that's why it is such a strong bipartisan bill coming out of the house financial services committee. applying bank-like regulation to nonbanks such as asset managers, broker dealers, insurance companies, private investment funds just doesn't make sense. nonbanks do not have access to this. larger nks take far capital hair cuts on the assets they hold. and nonbanks, when they fail, fail very differently from banks. if an individual mutual fund were to fail, the share holders of that fund would bear the losses, not the taxpayer. there is no reason to apply the same system to them. so the bill would bring clarity and accountability to the fsoc designation process. that should be self-evident.
to date the fsoc has designated four nonbank financial companies as systemically important institution. today only one remains designated. and it's unclear for exactly how long. the dedesignation of these companies seems to point to a -- de-designation to these companies seems to point to a recognition that these companies do not represent a potential risk that fsoc first claimed that they did. metlife, one of them, actually challenged fsoc's sifi determination in court. and fsoc's designation was found by an article three judge to be fatally flawed, arbitrary, capricious and a critical departure from fsoc's own standards. based on that case alone, based on that case alone it is certainly -- it certainly seems appropriate for congress to ensure that a proper guardrails are put in place in this designation. because at the end of the day, the designation doesn't just effect, again, wall street. it is felt directly by main street households who are trying
to save for college, save for retirement. they would see their costs rise and their investment returns fall on a mutual fund if it was designated. simply because investors would be required to bail out other too big to fail firms. so this is a commonsense piece of legislation. it is strongly bipartisan. and i urge all members to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 4061, the so-called financial stability oversight council improvement act. the bill would recklessly complicate the process used by the financial stability oversight council, referred to as fsoc, to designate nonbank firms for heightened oversight
and protect the economy. the bill would also give companies more avenues to delay, by at least four years, or block these designations, even when the designations are warranted. according to former secretary -- treasury secretary, who previously chaired fsoc, and strongly opposed this bill last congress, he said, and i quote, an extensively long four-year process to designate large, complex firms that pose significant risk to the financial system is not an improvement. instead it would effectively render meaningless one of the most important tools we and future councils should have to address threats to financial stability, end quote. the nonpartisan congressional budget office confirmed this view. finding that h.r. 4061 would increase the risk that undesignated, systemic nonbanks
firms will fail. let me be very clear. this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to hinder and needlessly delay fsoc's existing ability to designate firms for heightened oversight. americans for financial reform has also underscored that this bill would, quote, provide giant global financial firms numerous opportunities to use insider lobbying and the courts to delay or prevent actions that banking regulators are attempting to take to safeguard economic stability. end quote. one of the reasons congress created fsoc was to make sure that large, interconnected firms like bar stearns, a.i.g. or lehman brothers, would never begun devastate the stability of our financial system and jeopardize our country's strong economy with their risky practices and relentless demand for profits over safe and sound
operations. so i simply cannot support this bill. which would add hurdles to prevent fsoc from fulfilling its vital role of identifying interconnected, huge companied that -- companies that warrant enhanced safeguards. i also reject the myths republicans continue to spread about the dodd-frank act in their effort to rollback so many of its critical reforms. the majority has claimed that dodd-frank has caused tremendous burden on the financial industry and resulted in lenders denying affordable access to credit to consumers and families. but the numbers tell the real story of the success of dodd-frank. and the need to maintain its regulatory regime, including the fsoc. why? because bank profits and share prices have skyrocketed and are now far above pre-recession heights. in addition, business lending
has increased 80% and community banks are doing well. what's more, pay for bank executives is through the roof. c.e.o. pay on wall street is back up to levels we saw -- well, we last saw in 2006. even wells fargo's c.e.o., yes, the recidivist megabank that has violated numerous laws and harmed millions of consumers was paid $17.5 million last year. in fact, the c.e.o. was paid 291 times the median salary for wells fargo employees. while wall street has fully recovered, main street has not. as a republican former treasury official who now serves as the president of the federal reserve bank of minneapolis argued in a "the washington post" op-ed on march 8, 2018, and i quote, he
said, the great recession pushed millions of americans out of the labor force. some of whom still haven't returned. although the headline unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10% during the recession to 4.1% this past january, that statistic ignores people who have given up looking for work. a different measure of people in their prime working years suggests that more than one million americans are still on the sidelines, end quote. keep in mind these are the warnings from a republican official. in fact, he goes on to say that, quote, big banks still threaten our economy, quote-unquote. so i will continue to oppose measures like 4061, that would return our regulatory regime back to a system that encourages interconnected, huge firms to
grow at all costs and that cheered as these firms devised new and so-called innovative products, many of which are only innovative in terms of how risky and unsound they were. as so many have noted, if we undermine the ability of fsoc to stand guard as this bill would do, then we risk opening the door once again to the wolves of wall street, to wreak havoc with our economy again. this bill in effect recreates the moral hazard in wall street's corporate culture that promotes profits before consumers. this bill would put the interests of corporate america before protections of consumers, the interests of the public, and the stability of the u.s. economy. so, we must all remain vigilant against bills like this, or we risk another financial crisis. i therefore urge my colleagues to learn from the mistakes of
the past and oppose 4061. mr. speaker and members, you know, i am absolutely weary of coming to this floor with bills that deregulate megabanks. i am absolutely tired of coming to this floor having to remind my colleagues over and over again about the crisis that we had to be presented with and had to work through in 2008. i don't know why it is our members find so much time to protect the biggest banks in america, the richest banks in america, the c.e.o.'s who are making millions of dollars, while in fact the consumers come second or third in the work that they are doing. this is simply about deregulation. this is about giving the banks more power. this is about disregarding the
fact that we have had to fine them over and over again and they still find ways to defraud and to cheat the consumers of america. as the chairman just mentioned about the fines of wells fargo, well, they're up for another fine of about $1 billion because they cheated their clients, they cheated their customers, they created accounts in their names that they didn't know anything about. they forced insurance on them that they didn't need, many of them already had insurance. and it goes on and on and on. i would hope that we would -- could convince our members that we need to spend more time on some of the issues that are really confronting america. i am on this committee as a ranking member. we don't have any bills or any sessions about homelessness. we're not talking about the people who