Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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, also 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 4 years or block these designations even when the designations are warranted. According to former Treasury Secretary Lew, who previously chaired FSOC and strongly opposed this bill last Congress: ``An extensively long 4-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 in future councils should have to address threats to financial stability.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed this view, finding that H.R. 4061 would increase the risk that undesignated systemic nonbank 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: ``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.'' One of the reasons Congress created FSOC was to make sure that large, interconnected firms like Bear Stearns, AIG, or Lehman Brothers would never again 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 companies that warrant enhanced safeguards. I also reject the myths Republicans continue to spread about the Dodd-Frank Act in their effort to roll back 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 percent and community banks are doing well. What is more, pay for bank executives is through the roof. CEO pay on Wall Street is back up to levels we last saw in 2006. Even Wells Fargo's CEO, yes, the recidivist megabank that has violated numerous laws and harmed millions of consumers, was paid $17.5 million last year. In fact, the CEO was paid 291 times the median salary for Wells Fargo employees. While Wall Street has fully recovered, Main Street has not. As Neel Kashkari, a Republican former Treasury official who now serves as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis argued in a Washington Post op-ed on March 8, 2018: ``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 percent during the recession to 4.1 percent 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 1 million Americans are still on the sidelines.'' Keep in mind, these are warnings from a Republican official. In fact, he goes on to say: ``Big banks still threaten our economy.'' So I will continue to oppose measures like H.R. 4061 that would return our regulatory regime back to a system that encouraged 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 H.R. 4061. Mr. Speaker, 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 CEOs 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 are up for another fine of about a billion dollars 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 hope that we 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 the ranking member. We don't have any bills or any sessions about homelessness. We are not talking about the people who are on the street all over America. We are not talking about the housing crisis where the average family even that is employed working every day can't afford to buy a home, now can't even afford to lease a place to live. It is off the scale. I could go on and recount all of the things we should be addressing just in our committee, not to talk about the other things and issues in this Congress of the United States that we should be looking at, we should be paying attention to. We have had all of the gun issues, we have all the issues that are going on now about Syria, and on and on and on, and yet we find the time to come to this floor day in and day out, time and time again, to talk about how we can make the biggest banks in America richer and more profitable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just walk through some of what happens with FSOC with these nonbank designations and the process, because I have always wanted to be sure that the process would give these nonbanks an opportunity to basically convince FSOC that they were safe and they were sound and they didn't present any risk, and all of that. Of course, a lot of this was triggered by AIG. If you remember AIG and what happened with this nonbank who was involved in credit default swaps without the collateral to back them up, this certainly was informative, and it helped to develop this process. Stage 1, the metrics: minimum quantitative metrics for a nonbank financial company to be eligible for designation. Stage 2, preliminary review, 6 months: staff analyzes preliminary data and meets with the company, consults with existing regulators. Stage 3, in-depth review, 14 months: staff analyzes extensive data, meets with company, consults with existing regulators, FSOC deputies meet with company. Proposed designation and hearing on the final designation, 4 months. FSOC provides written basis of proposed designation, oral hearings, provides lengthy written basis of final designation. Total time from outset of analysis to final designation, 2 years. Judicial and annual reviews: any designated company may challenge FSOC's determination in court; every designated company is re-reviewed by FSOC every year to consider de-designation. I want you to know what is being proposed in this bill is quite different and, instead of the 2 years that I have just walked through, it would take approximately 4.3 years. At such time, you could have one of these nonbanks in trouble, presenting great risk, and you would not be able to do very much about it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Members a statement from the former Secretary of the Treasury who had the responsibility to head FSOC, and that is Jacob J. Lew. He said, and I will read from his communication to us: Unfortunately, none of the legislation the committee plans to consider this week--referring to this bill--would strengthen the Council's ability to address the very real risk the largest and most complex financial firms could pose. Instead, these proposals would be a big step backwards for regulatory tools to prevent the same kinds of threats. These bills would severely undermine and impair the Council. One of the proposals would require the Council to spend 4 years analyzing a firm before taking action to address any risk the firms may propose, doubling the time period for designation review. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do think that it is important that we share as much information as we can about FSOC because not a lot is known by the average person about FSOC, and when we talk about it, we oftentimes fail to talk about who makes up FSOC. We are talking about 10 voting members, headed by Treasury, the Treasury Secretary. You have on FSOC all of the experts. You have the Federal Reserve. You have the FDIC. You have the OCC. You have the NCUA. You have the CFPB, the FHFA, the SEC, the CFTC, and an independent insurance expert. So here you have convened on the FSOC all of these experts, and they are looking at nonbanks that could present great risk to our economy, like AIG. I have to keep reminding people about AIG because AIG was this nonbank that we bailed out to the tune of about $182 billion, $183 billion. Don't forget, they were involved with credit default swaps that were not collateralized. They were basically putting insurance out there that, when the time came due for them to have to pay off, they couldn't because they didn't have the collateral to do that. So with these experts, with the experiences that we have gone through, FSOC makes a lot of sense. And when it is said that all they can do is designate, that is extremely important because that gives the companies an opportunity to go back and take a look at themselves and see what they can do to reduce this risk to become more stable, and this has happened already. As a matter of fact, I think to designate a nonbank, FSOC must have a vote of two-thirds of its members, including the Treasury Secretary. So this is not easily done. Again, designation gives the companies an opportunity to go back and take a look. At least one of them has decided to downsize. Let me just share this with you. First, FSOC is certainly not running a Hotel California. A designated firm like GE Capital was able to make the kind of risk-reducing structural reforms that led to their de- designation under the annual review process required by Dodd-Frank. So, no, designated firms are not stuck with their designation forever. Don't forget, they get reviewed every year. Don't forget, they can make changes. Don't forget, they can take the advice. They can come in and they can continue to work on putting themselves in order so that they can get de-designated. And I think that is extremely important and that should not get lost. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I identified the 10 voting members that serve on FSOC. I did not add to that the nonvoting members. To show you the expertise that is involved with FSOC, they also have these nonvoting members: Estate Insurance Regulator, Estate Bank Regulator, State Securities Regulator, and the Federal Insurance Office. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the wonderful things about working and living in a democracy is that people have an opportunity to have opinions and to voice them and to act out on them. And certainly we don't always agree on everything. The Republicans don't always agree in their caucuses. Sometimes they walk lockstep for all kinds of reasons, but they do disagree sometimes when they feel it is safe to do so. But Democrats do not always agree, and we disagree perhaps more in our caucus than Republicans do, and we feel free to do that because we understand the importance of the democracy and what it permits and allows you to do. So in saying that, we take every effort in my committee to make sure that all of our members have the information that they need. My staff is available to provide any assistance that we can provide. So we are very pleased and proud that I, as the ranking member, operate the committee in a way that respects all of its members. And even those members who come to the floor who are opposed, perhaps, to a bill or are supporting a bill that I and others may oppose, I respect that. That is how democracy works. So today, we do have Democratic members who are supporting this bill. For whatever reasons, they believe that FSOC perhaps is too tough on some of the companies, that somehow they really don't achieve their mission of reducing risk. Whatever it is they believe, they certainly have a right to do that. And I respect that. Having said that, I believe that the lesson that we learn, as a result of 2008 and the recession that we went through, and AIG, the nonbank, in particular, that we bailed out when we saw the weakness of AIG, and the fact that they had basically dealt with these credit default swaps, and that it had created such a problem in our economy, I am so pleased that we had the foresight and the wisdom to come up with a way by which to identify this risk of the nonbanks so that they do not create the kind of turbulence and problems that we had in 2008. Having said that, I am very pleased about the wide breadth of expertise that is on the FSOC. And I certainly believe that having gone through the steps that they take, that those steps will allow everyone to understand and see how fair they are, what kind of time it takes; and it gives every opportunity to be de-designated from being identified as a SIFI. So I am very pleased and proud that I am able to say to my colleagues--no matter how they vote--that I believe that the FSOC is an important reform in the Dodd-Frank reforms. I would ask them to oppose this bill, but if they do not support it, I respect that. I think we should all remember that each and every one of us--elected by the people who send us here--have a voice and we have a right to represent our constituents in the best way that we see possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In these debates, oftentimes we find ourselves explaining to people how our committees work, and that is very good that we take the opportunity to do that because I think that, in this complicated system that we work in, people need to understand what we do and how we do it. I am very appreciative to the chairman for recognizing and giving time to some of our Members today, and I think he will remember that I have done that for him also. I can recall on flood insurance, the National Flood Insurance bill, I was very gracious and I gave Members on the Republican side of the aisle an opportunity to have a say. And not only that, Ex-Im Bank was another instance where I gave time to the Members from the opposite side of the aisle, so I would not like people who are listening to think that somehow this is unusual. We do use the influence and power of our positions to determine when that makes good sense for us, and I would like to say to the chairman of our committee: There will be other times when I will afford Republicans an opportunity to speak and have their say when you don't feel that that is the proper thing for you to do at that time. So let us all remember how this system works. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, week after week, the majority is continuing to push through bills to roll back critical reforms that Democrats put in place to protect consumers, investors, and our economy. Let's recount some of the bills that the majority has recently pushed through the House: In recent months, they have passed legislation to allow payday lenders to evade State interest rate caps, decrease operational risk capital requirements, and roll back enhanced prudential standards for the Nation's largest banks; weaken customer protections for mortgages; undermine efforts to combat discriminatory and predatory lending; reduce consumer privacy protections; weaken rules that the financial services industry finds inconvenient; undermine protections for mom- and-pop investors; and allow financial institutions to challenge rules, financial regulations, in court, if they believe them not to be uniquely tailored to their business needs. Every week, the list of harmful legislation put forth by the majority for House passage grows. H.R. 4061, the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act is the latest example of the majority's misguided and reckless agenda. H.R. 4061 helps financial institutions to delay or block heightened oversight and weakens FSOC's ability to protect our economy. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores th lessons of the past and invites the return to the risky financial system that led to the financial crisis. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Maloney for helping to make sure that we come to the floor this evening so that we can speak up for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, along with my Democratic colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, to discuss a central component of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Maloney, for organizing this event with me tonight. Mrs. Maloney is a valuable member of the Financial Services Committee and she is also a leader on the Joint Economic Committee, she serves on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. She is a very, very busy Member of this Congress, and I don't know exactly how she finds time to do everything that she does, but I am so grateful for the opportunity to serve with her, because of her dedication and her commitment, not only to her constituents, but to the citizens of this country, and particularly focused on consumer protection. The Consumer Bureau is vitally important in protecting American consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices by financial institutions all across the country. Following the financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Bureau in order to ensure that Americans have a regulator solely focused on ensuring that they are not preyed on by bad actors. The need for such an agency was made very clear by the 2008 crisis, which was driven by unchecked, deceptive, predatory lending that caused millions of American families to lose their homes. The Consumer Bureau has been an enormous success, and under the leadership of Richard Cordray, the agency worked exactly as we intended it to. The Consumer Bureau has returned nearly $12 billion to over 30 million consumers who have been harmed by financial institutions. The agency has also addressed more than 1.2 million consumer complaints about financial institutions. But now Donald Trump has moved to ``do a big number on Dodd-Frank'' and undermine the Consumer Bureau. Despite the fact that the Dodd-Frank statute is very clear that the deputy director of the Consumer Bureau shall serve as acting director in the absence or unavailability of the director, President Trump illegally appointed his Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, to serve as acting director. Because Mr. Mulvaney serves at the pleasure of the President as OMB Director, President Trump now has an inappropriate level of influence over the operations and activities of the Consumer Bureau, which is an independent agency that is supposed to be outside of the authority of the executive branch. Since his illegal appointment, Mr. Mulvaney has indeed been carrying out President Trump's harmful agenda and working to reverse much of the important progress that the agency has made. This is not surprising given that Mulvaney previously stated, ``I don't like the fact that the CFPB exists,'' and even called the Consumer Bureau a sick, sad joke. In his short time at the Consumer Bureau, Mr. Mulvaney has stripped the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity of its enforcement and supervisory powers, in a move that badly weakens the agency's ability to crack down on discriminatory lending. He has also taken zero public enforcement actions against financial institutions that harm consumers across the board during his tenure, even though his predecessor, Richard Cordray, initiated hundreds. In addition, Mr. Mulvaney has taken a series of actions that benefit predatory payday lenders, including the decision to halt implementation of the Consumer Bureau's sensible payday rule, the decision to withdraw a lawsuit against a group of payday lenders that allegedly misled consumers about the cost of loans, which had interest rates as high as 950 percent a year, and the decision to cease an investigation into World Acceptance Corporation, a high-cost installment lender which was reportedly engaging in abusive practices. And, in fact, the former CEO of World Acceptance Corporation felt so comfortable with Mr. Mulvaney, that she had the audacity to send to him a letter requesting that she be appointed to run the whole agency as the director. So many of us were shocked at the audacity that she exhibited, and tried to find out from Mr. Mulvaney today, I did in particular, why did he halt the lawsuit against her company and why would she send him her resume to ask to be considered for the role of director of the Consumer Bureau. Mr. Mulvaney's many harmful actions send a signal to bad actors that they can get away with abusing consumers. What is more, Republicans have relentlessly attacked the Consumer Bureau since its inception. Despite what my Republican colleagues may have you believe, the leadership structure of the Consumer Bureau is not unique. In fact, there are other Federal regulatory agencies with similar structures, but these facts haven't stopped Republicans and some in the industry from making legal challenges to its structure. That is why last year, I led 40 other current and former Members of Congress to file a brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the P.H.H. case support of the Consumer Bureau's independent structure and its clear constitutionality. And earlier this year, the court issued a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Consumer Bureau's structure. Republicans have been clamoring to weaken, impede, and ultimately destroy the Consumer Bureau since its creation. First, they did everything they could to block a director from being appointed in the first place, and since then, they have pushed measures to defund and dismantle the Consumer Bureau. The chairman has called for the Consumer Bureau to be ``functionally terminated,'' and advanced legislation, including H.R. 10, which I call the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, to do so. Now, in Mick Mulvaney, Republicans have an ally to destroy the Consumer Bureau from within, but it is unclear why destroying the Consumer Bureau is at the top of the Republican agenda. There are constituents in every State who have been ripped off by financial institutions. Why aren't Republicans fighting for them and for their financial security? Mr. Speaker, Democrats will not allow the Consumer Bureau to be diverted from its statutorily mandated mission of protecting consumers and serving as an independent watchdog. This agency is crucial for hardworking Americans, and its work must continue. Mr. Speaker, in my closing, I would like to thank Congresswoman Maloney for the way that she conducted her questions today with Mr. Mulvaney in our committee and asked him how many cases had he taken up, what had he initiated against those companies that are committing fraud, only to find out that he has done nothing. She forced him to answer, and he had to admit, zero, that he has not taken any actions against any companies in this country who are involved in the kind of actions that the Consumer Bureau is designed to deal with and to force them to do the right thing. So, Mr. Speaker, in that, I would like to thank Congresswoman Maloney for initiating this action this evening that we are taking to make sure everyone understands the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and I appreciate working with her to get this done.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4566, the so-called Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, which would make it harder for regulators to identify and mitigate hidden systemic risks at nonbank financial companies before they undermine our economy. Last Wednesday marked 10 years since global investment bank Bear Stearns imploded as a result of its failure to manage risk associated with its highly leveraged balance sheet and exposure to the subprime mortgage market. American taxpayers were forced to come to the rescue to prevent the firm's collapse from spreading to other overleveraged Wall Street institutions. The demise of Bear Stearns was the canary in the coal mine for the ensuing financial crisis, which ravaged the United States economy, destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, and put millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Democrats responded to the 2008 financial crisis by passing the Dodd- Frank Act, which, among other reforms, required rigorous stress tests of the Nation's largest financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act also gave the Federal Reserve Board the discretion to quickly intervene and stress-test firms that could pose financial stability risk. If regular stress testing had been conducted on firms like Bear Stearns from 2006 to 2008, it might have revealed major threats to the economy sooner, giving both the companies and Federal financial regulators a better chance to take remedial action to avoid a catastrophic near collapse of the global financial system. H.R. 4566 would eliminate the Federal Reserve's authority to stress- test nonbank financial companies, even in situations where the firm's designation as systemically important is pending before the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC. Additionally, the bill would weaken the Dodd-Frank mandate that large financial companies under the SEC and CFTC's purview conduct internal stress tests to determine the company's ability to withstand a recession. Combined, these rollbacks would allow the Bear Stearns of the world to take on increasing amounts of risk while regulators are tied up in lengthy administrative processes. As former SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated in a December 2014 speech: ``Stress testing is an important tool routinely used by banking regulators. Implementing this new mandate in asset management, while relatively novel, will help market participation and the Commission better understand the potential impact of stress events.'' I agree with Chair White's comments about the importance of stress testing and think that it simply does not make sound public policy to eliminate this tool. Members of the asset management industry have also recognized that stress testing is critical to effectively managing risk. In a 2015 letter to the SEC, the Asset Management Group of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, that is SIFMA AMG, whose members manage more than $30 trillion in assets, wrote: ``Stress testing is one part of an effective and coherent risk management process for asset managers, the objective of which is not to test for solvency or capital adequacy, but to complement other approaches in assessing investment risk.'' In fact, in a 2015 survey of SIFMA AMG members, nearly two-thirds of the asset managers surveyed reported that they already stress-test their funds. It seems imprudent that Congress would repeal a requirement for large interconnected hedge funds that may have 15-to-1 leverage to periodically determine whether they could withstand a down economy. Moreover, given how rapidly failures at large nonbank financial companies can spread across the highly interconnected financial system, regulators must be able to quickly identify problems that could undermine U.S. financial stability. The Federal Reserve should continue to have the discretionary authority to step in to identify and mitigate systemic risk at any financial company whose failure could pose a threat to our economy. H.R. 4566 appears to ignore that nonbank financial companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG played a central role in the financial crisis. When these firms collapsed as a result of their failure to mitigate their own internal risk, their losses sent shockwaves throughout the banking system. Stress testing these kinds of nonbank financial institutions provides a valuable early warning system for our economy and gives both the companies and regulators a chance to correct problems before they have catastrophic effects on our financial stability. That is why I intend to offer an amendment that, if adopted, would restore the Fed's discretionary authority to stress test any nonbank, provided that the test meet certain conditions, including approval by a majority of FSOC members. It would also allow the Fed to use alternatives to capital, as appropriate, when stress-testing systemically important nonbanks and broaden the SEC's and CFTC's authority to require internal testing for entities under their purview. This amendment would ensure that large financial institutions, like investment companies that manage trillions of dollars of hardworking Americans' retirement savings, can be appropriately evaluated for their ability to survive in a stressed economy. While I oppose H.R. 4566 in its current form, I would support an amended version of the bill that preserves the bill's ability to identify and mitigate future systemic risk at nonbanks before they lead to another crisis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle and my chairman, Mr. Hensarling, for indicating their acceptance of the amendment. I think it is extremely important for both sides of the aisle to appreciate the necessity and the importance of stress testing, and I think we both do that. The discretion that we afford to the Feds in this bill, I think, is very important. So this is one of those instances when both sides can come together and recognize that there were important indications of what is needed to understand what should be done to avoid another meltdown in our financial services industries and our banks. Again, I don't think there is any need for us to continue to talk about what we don't like about stress testing, but, rather, we are coming together to talk about how it is done and why it is important. I have a great appreciation for that, and I would like to thank my colleagues for that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the work that staff has done on this particular legislation. I do believe that we all agree that stress tests are important; it is a matter of who, how, and when. Someone has likened stress tests to car testing, where, in the manufacture of new cars, you take them out on the road and you test them to see if they can withstand what they may be presented with in the terrain and with the kind of things that you would experience perhaps on the roughest roads that they test on. When they determine that there are weaknesses that can be corrected, that is what they do in order to make sure that this new vehicle that they are testing can withstand whatever the difficulties are that may be presented to them when they test a car. That is what this stress testing is all about. It all about whether or not, in the event of a downturn in our economy, you have the ability to withstand the downturn, whether or not you have the ability to not only withstand what you are presented with in a downturn of the economy, but how you can fix what you have determined is wrong with what you are doing. So I am, again, very pleased that we all agree that stress testing is extremely important and that we know what your concerns are about hedge fund and asset managers and all of that. But the discretion that we give to the Feds, I think, is very important. The fact that all of the businesses that we are concerned with will be doing their internal stress testing is extremely important. So, again, I am very grateful for the acceptance of my amendment, and I am hopeful that, with this amendment, it demonstrates that, when we work very hard to reconcile our differences, we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that, with this amendment, all of the Members of the House vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, H.R. 4566 eliminates the Fed's discretion to require stress testing on nonbanks that have not yet been designated as systemically important and weakens the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate that the SEC and CFTC require nonbank financial companies under their authority to conduct annual stress tests. Together, these repeals create a loophole that would allow large brokerage firms and mega insurance companies to ignore risks while regulators are tied up in lengthy rulemaking or the FSOC designation process. My amendment, if adopted, would restore the Fed's discretionary authority to stress-test any nonbank financial firm, provided that the test is requested by a majority vote of the FSOC, is conducted with consideration of the company's business model, and is not already required by the company's primary regulator. My amendment would also allow the Fed to consider alternatives to the existing capital adequacy test, where appropriate, when conducting stress tests on nonbanks, including those designated as systemically important. One of the key safeguards created by Dodd-Frank is the Fed's ability to identify and mitigate risks in the financial system before they undermine the U.S. economy. By preserving the Fed's ability to stress- test nonbank financial companies on a discretionary basis, my amendment will give regulators a better chance of preventing the next Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers from dragging down our financial system. Finally, my amendment would broaden the SEC's and CFTC's authority under the bill by striking the provision that would limit future company-run stress testing requirements to entities with more than $10 billion in assets. This would ensure that the SEC and CFTC can require any financial company under their purview to evaluate their own ability to survive in a stressed economy. While I oppose H.R. 4566 as currently drafted, with this amendment, the bill would represent a truly bipartisan effort to strengthen Dodd- Frank. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 115-613 with the modification placed at the desk.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very important bill that I am asking the Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on because we don't want to empower the megabanks and huge conglomerates to be able to skirt adverse supervisory decisions about regulators. The bill would give all financial institutions, regardless of their size, an additional method to appeal, thereby significantly delaying adverse determinations by creating a new independent review office to conduct de novo reviews without concern for the institution's safety and soundness or the protection of consumers. This bill goes far beyond relief for community banks and credit unions by enabling megabanks and nonbanks, like payday lenders and Equifax, to pursue limitless challenges to the agency's actions in court. If you take a look at the examples that we have prepared for you, take a look at Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has been at the center of attention in this country for the fraudulent accounts that it established using their customers' accounts and information to create more accounts without informing their customers; and then they had the illegal student loan servicing practices that we have all been so concerned about; and even after the fraudulent accounts were exposed and a fine was made because of the harm that they had caused to their customers, we then found that they had inappropriate force-placed insurance, which means that people who were already paying for their insurance were forced to pay again because the bank basically forced them to have additional insurance. And then there is J.P. Morgan with illegal credit card practices and discriminatory lending, sale of bad credit card debt, and illegal robo- signing. And Citi with deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices; inappropriate fees, marketing, billing, administration of add-on products; and foreclosure abuses. Bank of America, also mortgage abuses, deficient mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices, credit monitoring abuses, deceptive marketing for add-on products, violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Now, we find that these banks have determined--they act in ways that we know that fighting is just the cost of doing business. It is a slap on the wrist. And they are going to continue to be able to get away with this. And if they are saying that the bank examiners who come in and find these adverse conditions somehow will be ignored and they can literally get around them, then we are going to add to the problems of our consumers in this country. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly asking for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.