Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me just read one of the paragraphs from the Center for American Progress that I think is so profound. ``The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act, would give financial institutions the authority to appeal any material examination decision rendered by the Federal banking regulators or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, to the Office of Independent Examination Review--a new office created by the bill. Financial regulators already have internal appeals processes in place through their respective ombudsman offices and financial institutions can pursue legal remedy for flawed examination decisions through the judicial system. ``This new office and review process is simply an additional hurdle for regulators to contend with when supervising financial institutions and an additional point at which institutions can slow down or avoid punishments. H.R. 4545 would undermine the examinations process at a time when supervisory authority and penalties for financial sector malfeasance should be strengthened.'' In addition to that, there is another paragraph in the letter from Americans for Financial Reform that I think is extremely important in explaining why this bill should be opposed. It says: ``By layering an entirely new appeals process on top of existing processes, this bill would greatly increase the ability of banks to resist supervisory oversight and ignore or delay changes called for by supervisors. The impact would be most pronounced at the largest banks, which can receive dozens or hundreds of material findings from every examination. The ability to appeal every one of those material supervisory findings, or just to threaten to appeal them, would create an enormous new barrier to effective supervision of big banks.'' In essence, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, we have our bank examiners who are going in and looking for ways to strengthen the banks and hoping that they will not find these adverse conditions, but, if they do, they have a responsibility to the consumers to try and get them corrected or to try and get changes made. This bill says, despite adverse conditions that are discovered, we don't want to have to comply; we don't want to have to change; we don't want to have to correct. We want to fight you. We want to use our vast resources to say your examiners didn't know what they were doing. They are not so much concerned about the consumers; rather, they are more concerned about just being a part of the bureaucracy. It doesn't make good sense what they are saying about the examiners and why they are not important. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I always have these lively debates with my chairman, and he never fails to point out that I voted for the bailout. And, of course, oftentimes when he comes with one of these deregulation bills, he talks about bipartisan and how he had Democrats. Well, I want you to know the bailout was a bipartisan thing. It was appointed by both Democrats and Republicans at a time when we were in great difficulty in this country. It was the Bush bailout, and it was Mr. Paulson, appointed by Mr. Bush, who was the Secretary who led it and gave us the advice and had us participate in saving our economy based on the information that he had uncovered about the risk that was now proposed for our country. So I am not for bailing out big banks at all. We had an emergency situation in this country where, again, it was the Bush bailout that we had to deal with the fact that we were in great danger. But let me just also say this: we have something now that we put into Dodd-Frank reform called the Orderly Liquidation Authority scenario that we are able to look at banks, and, because of the stress testing that they have gone through, if there is a need for an orderly resolution because there are problems with the bank, we cannot only recommend breaking off parts of the bank, but reordering parts of the bank and doing what is necessary to ensure that the bank does not get into a situation where it fails and triggers the failures of others in our economy. So it is the Orderly Liquidation Authority that I am referring to, and I do not support bailing out big banks. This is one thing that I join with my chairman on. We both agree that we should not be bailing out these big banks. And, of course, that is what Dodd-Frank is helping us to avoid. 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 appreciate the offer from my good friend to join him, but I don't think I will be doing that today. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record organizations that have sent us information in opposition to this bill. It includes the National Consumer Law Center, AFSCME, the Center for American Progress, and Americans for Financial Reform. National Consumer Law Center, Washington, DC, March 8, 2017. Re Oppose S. Amdt. 2140 (Moran), HR 4545, The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness Act; creates roadblocks to bank supervision for safety and soundness, consumer protection. Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. On behalf of our low income clients, I urge you to oppose Senate Amendment 2140 to S. 2155, which incorporates HR 4545 (Tipton), The Financial Institutions Examination Fairness Act. The bill would create unprecedented barriers to effective prudential and consumer protection supervision of banks, allowing banks to resist corrective actions to address law violations or safety and soundness risks, bogging down agencies with frivolous appeals. HR 4545 would grant regulated banks the right to appeal any supervisory determination made by any prudential banking agency or by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to a new ``Office of Independent Examination Review'' established in the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC). Upon appeal by a supervised bank, this new office would be required to undertake a repetitive de novo review of the agency's supervisory decision. No deference to the initial examination findings or the agency's judgment would be required in this review. This new process is duplicative to appeals processes and ombudsmen already present. The CFPB, FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration each already have an agency ombudsman and an intra-agency formal review and appeals process. In addition, banks may bring a court challenge to any formal regulatory enforcement action. HR 4545 would enormously increase the ability of banks to resist supervisory decisions. This effect would be most pronounced at the largest banks, who could appeal dozens or hundreds of material findings from every examination, creating enormous roadblocks to supervision. The bank supervision process has been the first line of regulatory defense against threats to bank safety and soundness for a century or more. HR 4545 creates unprecedented roadblocks to the effectiveness of bank supervisory determinations and could be devastating to effective regulatory oversight in areas ranging from basic prudential oversight to key consumer protections that make our financial markets fairer. I urge you to oppose HR 4545 and any amendment that incorporates the bill. Yours very truly, Lauren K. Saunders, Associate Director.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4545 is yet another harmful bill that would help out Wall Street and predatory lenders. It has become a theme for the majority to claim that their legislation is meant to provide relief for small community banks, when, in fact, the legislation plainly benefits the Nation's largest banks, including abusive megabanks like Wells Fargo and even payday lenders. This bill is yet another example. The bill would allow any bank as well as any nonbank supervised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to appeal negative supervisory determinations made by regulators in the examination process. H.R. 4545 makes it more likely that bad actors, including predatory megabanks like Wells Fargo, would avoid or delay accountability when they break Federal law. It takes our system of financial regulation in exactly the wrong direction. Megabanks like Wells Fargo already treat the fines they are required to pay for violations of the law as simply the cost of doing business. They don't need more escape routes to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing. I have made it clear many times that abusive megabanks with egregious patterns of harming consumers should face steep penalties from regulators. Last year I introduced H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act, which would require the Federal prudential banking regulators to fully utilize existing authorities, such as the ability to shut down a megabank and ban culpable executives and directors from working in the banking industry. To get tough on megabanks that repeatedly engage in practices that harm consumers, Congress should be focused on measures that strengthen consumer protections, provide tailored, responsible relief for community banks, and ensure that abusive megabanks are held accountable. This bill, which would help megabanks and predatory lenders get off the hook when they break the law, should be rejected. Mr. Speaker, 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, my amendment is fairly straightforward. It would limit the applicability of the exam reforms under H.R. 4545 to only depository institutions with assets less than $10 billion. I have only heard about community banks and credit unions with respect to concerns regarding their exam process and the ability to enhance the opportunity to appeal exam findings. As Ms. Maloney made clear, when the committee marked up this bill, the sole purpose of the bill was to help community banks and credit unions, so my amendment seeks to narrow the scope of the bill's relief to these small firms. Congress used a similar $10 billion asset threshold in Dodd-Frank to exempt small banks and credit unions from the Consumer Bureau's supervision, so applying a similar threshold for the purpose of appealing bank supervisory findings makes sense. Today, 98 percent of all banks and 99.8 percent of all credit unions have less than $10 billion in assets. While I am in favor of sensible relief for smaller financial institutions, I believe that the 2007-2009 financial crisis showed the dangers of weak oversight of these big banks, including a $30 billion bank like IndyMac. The bank's costly failure was the fourth largest in the history of the United States and contributed to the most damaging financial crisis in generations. As the largest firms pose the greatest risk to the country's economy and the safety and soundness of our financial system, it is only prudent to apply a stringent supervisory approach for the largest institutions. In fact, the GAO issued a report last year criticizing the Federal Reserve's large bank supervision program, underscoring there is more work that must be done. I have been pushing bank regulators to deploy the full suite of their enforcement tools against megabanks like Wells Fargo that repeatedly and carelessly break the law and harm millions of consumers. That is why I introduced, again, H.R. 3937, the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act. So, no, I do not think it is appropriate to let megabanks like Wells Fargo hijack what should be regulatory relief for community banks so that they can challenge their exams. Nonbanks regulated by the Consumer Bureau, like Equifax or payday lenders, do not need this kind of regulatory relief either. My amendment narrows the scope of the bill on what should garner broad bipartisan support: sensible relief for the community banks and credit unions that need it. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues who truly want to help community banks and credit unions rather than Wall Street megabanks to support my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, H.R. 4263, the so-called Regulation A+ Improvement Act, is a solution in search of a problem that threatens to undermine protections for mom-and-pop investors and the integrity of our capital markets. The bill would arbitrarily and prematurely increase the maximum amount of securities that private companies can sell each year to the public from $50 million to $75 million under the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation A+ exemption from registration. Mr. Speaker, such a change makes no sense. First, the SEC only recently implemented Regulation A+ pursuant to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, the JOBS Act. Effective June 19, 2015, that rule now allows private companies to raise either $20 million under Tier 1 or $50 million under Tier 2 from the public with less investor protections and oversight than a public securities offering registered with the SEC. What little data we have since it became effective suggests that there is no need to raise that $50 million limit. As of December 31, 2017, only 39 percent of the 172 companies using Tier 2 of Regulation A+ sought the maximum amount of $50 million; and only three issuers, or 5 percent, of the 61 issuers that have reported proceeds in Tier 2 offerings actually raised the maximum amount. Second, in the JOBS Act, Congress specifically directed the SEC to review the Regulation A+ limit every 2 years and report its reasons for not raising it to Congress. On April 5, 2016, the SEC sent Congress its report, stating: ``Given the short period of time that the final rules have been in effect and in light of the limited number of Regulation A+ offerings qualified and completed to date, the Commission does not believe that the information currently reported by companies on the amount of capital raised pursuant to Regulation A+ is sufficient to determine whether it would be appropriate to propose an increase in the Tier 2 $50 million offering limit.'' If my Republican colleagues think that the SEC should be doing more, they only have to wait a few more weeks for the SEC's next review and report on the Regulation A+ offering limit. There is no reason why Congress shouldn't acknowledge the SEC's existing efforts to study the empirical evidence instead of making arbitrary decisions devoid of any real analysis. Finally, and most importantly, the bill may harm retail investors and our markets. What my Republican colleagues fail to acknowledge is that the purpose of Regulation A+ is to provide small private businesses with access to financing from mom-and-pop investors, many of whom are in their community, so that they can grow and eventually enter the public markets as full SEC reporting companies traded on a national securities exchange. As public companies, they are subject to the full set of investor protections under the securities laws, but also gain access to much deeper sources of capital. Indeed, under the current system, eight Regulation A+ issuers have already listed their shares on an exchange, becoming true public companies. This positive development suggests that Regulation A+ is working as Congress intended, and expanding it could discourage companies from becoming truly public. However, it is also clear that additional study of the existing Regulation A+ exemption is warranted. A series of recent press articles highlight the high risk of loss that investors face in investing in companies that have used Regulation A+ even when those companies later list their securities for trading on an exchange. According to a February 2018 article in The Wall Street Journal, seven out of the eight companies that listed their securities for trading on an exchange in 2017 following a Regulation A+ offering are trading an average of 42 percent below their offering prices. By comparison, companies that engaged in a traditional initial public offering, or an IPO, in 2017 are trading an average of 22 percent above their offering prices. Moreover, those Regulation A+ companies were trading lower, even as the S&P 500, which tracks 500 large publicly traded companies, has risen 18 percent since the start of 2017. Congress should better understand why Regulation A+ companies that have gone public fared so poorly compared to the rest of the market before we go ahead and expand Regulation A+ through legislation like H.R. 4263. Now, Mr. Speaker, I joined with my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, and Mr. McHenry in particular, and supported the JOBS Act, and of course I had some questions about the risk that would be involved with our mom-and-pop investors. I wasn't sure, but I decided to support the JOBS Act and Mr. McHenry even with my concerns because I certainly wanted the opportunity for these small businesses to have access to capital that perhaps they would not be able to get otherwise. Along with that bill, we talked about the review that would be done to determine whether or not we should be increasing, particularly, Tier 2, that would expand the ability for the small businesses to have access to more than $50 million. So I don't know why we just don't stick with what we did. I think that, despite whatever we are learning about the A+ regulation, we need to understand thoroughly what the advantages are, what the disadvantages are, and what the risks are to investors, et cetera. So I am going to ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. 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 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 such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have extensive information here about what is happening with Regulation A+. At first, I decided that some of this information I wouldn't share because I am so anxious for these small businesses to be able to access capital, but I think that, you know, some of my earlier concerns, perhaps, may have been justified. H.R. 4263, the so-called Regulation A+ Improvement Act, is opposed by consumer and investor advocates. I would like to take a moment to read some of their statements in opposition to this bill. Consumer Federation of America: ``This bill would increase the offering limit, despite the fact that the SEC already has unlimited authority to raise the cap as it deems appropriate. Moreover, the SEC is required to review the offering limit every 2 years, with its next analysis expected to be released next month. . . . A vote for this bill, before the SEC has had a chance to complete its analysis, is a vote against evidence-based policymaking. ``If Congress were to take the time to consider the research that the SEC has conducted on the Regulation A markets since the Regulation A+ rules were adopted, it would find that there currently is no need to raise the limit . . . data suggest that issuers generally are not clamoring for more capital than is currently allowed to them under the rules. . . . ``The market's tepid reaction to Regulation A offerings is surely also related to the largely abysmal performance of Regulation A offerings to date. . . . A recent Barron's article provided an in-depth review of the Regulation A market, describing the `woeful performance' of the few dozen companies that are currently exchange-listed and the difficulty trading or getting a price quote for the vast majority of companies that aren't exchange listed. The Barron's article further described how `most Reg. A+ businesses haven't gotten beyond the startup phase known as the pipedream.' Some examples that the article cites include businesses seeking capital for cannabis paraphernalia, flying cars, studying UFOs, telepathy, and light-speed travel. We wonder why the backers of this legislation would spend so much time and effort seeking to artificially prop up businesses of this sort. ``And while Regulation A's supporters have touted Regulation A's job creating potential, the Barron's article states that the only people Regulation A clearly has created jobs for are Regulation A underwriters and promoters on Wall Street, many of whom have `checkered stock market histories.''' Are these really the sort of jobs Congress is intending to promote? ``In conclusion, because this bill arbitrarily increases the offering limit without evidence that doing so is either necessary or beneficial, and in the face of evidence that Regulation A offerings to date largely have been market failures, we urge you to vote `no.''' Let me just continue to quote. Americans for Financial Reform: ``This is an unwarranted increase in the threshold. Most fundamentally, Congress should not be undermining public securities markets by expanding the ability of larger companies to make offerings while being exempt from core disclosure and investor protection requirements. Private offerings were designed to permit early stage capital raising from sophisticated investors by small companies, but the current cap of $50 million per year in private capital raising already permits fairly large companies to take advantage of this route. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, already has regulatory authority to increase the current threshold, which they examine on a biannual basis. . . . ``Seven of the eight companies with Regulation A+ offerings in 2017 are down 42 percent from their offer prices, as compared to conventional offerings made during the same period, which are up 22 percent from offer prices. This is to be expected, given that Regulation A+ permits companies to avoid requirements such as disclosures that were designed to protect investors. If it expanded such exemptions, Congress would facilitate increased harm to investors. ``Members should also take notice that with the blockchain and cryptocurrency fever, SEC filing and disclosure exemptions like Regulation A+ are becoming a popular avenue for initial coin offerings, ICOs. . . . ``In the middle of this SEC crackdown on fraudulent ICOs, H.R. 4263 would potentially expose a larger number of investors--including nonaccredited, unsophisticated investors--to shady companies, Ponzi schemes, and exit scams. ``The widespread use of private offerings reduces transparency and investor protections in capital markets. Raising capital under Regulation A+ should be used as an on-ramp to a true public offering and not as an end in itself for larger issuers. Increasing the annual threshold for exempted Regulation A+ offerings goes in the opposite direction.'' Public Citizen had this to say: ``Evidence shows little demand for this measure. A study by the SEC of Regulation A+ offerings found that the average issuer sought only $18 million. Moreover, these firms pose risk for investors, as the issuers had only an average of $50,000 in cash; no property, plants, and equipment; no revenues; and no net income. Increasing access to capital with no additional investor protections exacerbates the problem.'' And so, yes, I do oppose the bill. Let me just say this. I would like small businesses to do well. I would like our small businesses to have access to the capital that they need to support, you know, good ideas that have been given the kind of research that is necessary to determine the potential for some of these businesses. You just heard this information from the Barron report. This is serious. What we have seen, despite the fact what we want to happen, is that it is not happening. The fact that we would like very much--and we have done everything that we could do with the JOBS Act to give support to our small businesses because we want them to thrive. We believe that they are job intensive, if they can get up and get going. It is not happening. What we are doing is we are exposing these little mom-and-pop investors to situations where they are going to lose what small amounts of money they are investing. So let's just be cool, let's be calm, and let's give the SEC the opportunity to do its analysis. There is no reason to push this now. I would ask my Members on the opposite side of the aisle to rethink and to join with me, oppose the bill so that we can give the SEC the opportunity, again, to do the kind of analysis it needs to do, and let's think about what else can we do to help small businesses, rather than continue down the road of failure, because this is exactly what is being exposed. 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, H.R. 4263 is just another reckless partisan bill that could harm mom-and-pop investors and weaken the integrity of the U.S. capital markets. It continues the efforts to repeal or weaken important regulatory protections under the guise of supporting jobs. Not only have my Republican colleagues failed to come up with any real data or analysis to support this claim, but they also completely substitute their own judgment for that of the SEC, the agency with the expertise over these issues. As I have already said, we only have to wait a few more weeks to see if the SEC decides to expand the Regulation A+ exemption and to understand its rationale for the decision. But I suppose a few weeks is a few weeks too long for my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who are currently pushing for as many of these kinds of bills as possible to be included in the Senate's Dodd-Frank rollback. Those bad bills would cause further harm to investors by allowing newly public companies to avoid audits of their controls over financial reporting for a decade; by hampering investors' ability to get independent, reliable information ahead of a shareholder meeting; and by making it easier for fraudsters to swindle unsophisticated investors into buying stock in a fake or failing company. It should come as no surprise that these same harmful provisions show up in the CHOICE Act, which is 10 times worse than the Senate's deregulatory bill. Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans want to help small businesses grow and create jobs, but as Members of Congress, we also have the responsibility to protect investors, particularly retail investors, who are looking to save for retirement, to buy a house, or to support our children's education. As I have repeatedly said, any regulation must strike the right balance between capital formation in our securities markets and investor protection. This bill fails to do that, and that is why it is opposed by consumer and investor advocates like Americans for Financial Reform, Consumer Federation of America, and Public Citizen. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members to join me in standing up for investors and vote ``no'' on H.R. 4263, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, prior to wrapping up this session of friends who care so much about Marcy Kaptur, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) not to talk about Wall Street.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, there are some wonderful moments in this institution. There are times when we are not always pleased and we don't feel as if anything is getting done, but then there are times like these when we have the opportunity to pay tribute to and to recognize one of our Members who have made tremendous contributions, someone who loves this institution and has worked hard to ensure that we get the best out of it. I am just pleased and proud that I have been a part of not only the recognition that we have done today, both in the reception that was held earlier for Congresswoman Kaptur, and for being able to be on this floor this evening and spend this opportunity with my other colleagues who helped us to understand the vast knowledge and contributions that this Congresswoman has made to this institution and all of the advice and mentoring that she has done for so many. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 1116, the so-called Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017, or the TAILOR Act. This bill would weaken important safeguards established since the financial crisis by requiring agencies on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council--composed of the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency--to perform a biased analysis that favors lessening the costs for industry over protecting consumers and the economy. It was 10 years ago today that Bear Stearns collapsed and the Federal Reserve used taxpayer funding to arrange a shotgun wedding to J.P. Morgan to avoid a catastrophe. We now know that much, much worse was to come, when AIG, Lehman Brothers, the money market fund industry, and hundreds of banks, including all of the largest ones, would need a bailout. And this says nothing of the tremendous damage inflicted on the millions of Americans whose homes were lost to foreclosure, the millions who lost their jobs, and the trillions of dollars of wealth that evaporated. Congress took decisive action to ensure that we were never caught unaware again when it passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Although some claim that the measure that is now before us is aimed at helping community banks, that is not the case. If enacted, this bill would provide all financial institutions, including the largest banks, with opportunities to challenge any and every regulation in court if they felt it was not, so-called, uniquely tailored to their business needs. This bill would ignore the mandates and requirements of all other laws passed by Congress and override decades of well-established administrative law requirements by subjecting all new financial rules to a vague, if not impossible, standard to meet. This includes an undefined standard of appropriateness and a vague standard of the ability to serve evolving and diverse customer needs; and, importantly, the legislation includes no similar mandate that regulators consider the benefits of Federal regulations, including the promotion of our Nation's financial stability or the protection of our consumers. Let us not forget that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the centerpiece of this Dodd-Frank reform. Prior to Dodd-Frank, our consumers had nobody looking out for them. They were left and they were taken advantage of, and so that is why we have Dodd-Frank reform. But it seems that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have forgotten about all of this. This set of standards that they are promoting not only applies to all future guidance and rulemaking, but retroactively to all of the rulemakings in the past 7 years, which, conveniently for the industry, covers all rules under the Dodd-Frank Act. But financial regulators already have to go through extensive look- back reviews to refine and improve rules that make sense. In fact, under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were just last week calling the gold standard for how regulators should review regulations, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC are already required to review their rules once every 10 years. During this review, the regulators must identify whether regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome and consider how to reduce regulatory burdens on insured depository institutions while, at the same time, ensuring safety and soundness. The Consumer Bureau engages in a similar look-back review 5 years after a significant rule takes effect. Make no mistake: I support tiered and tailored regulations for community banks and credit unions, but week after week, we have been on this House floor debating deregulatory gifts to Wall Street instead of moving legislation that actually benefits community banks and credit unions. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I have differences about Dodd-Frank, but something we worked hard to do in crafting those critical reforms was to make sure that the law did not impose a one-size-fits-all approach on every financial institution. So, as you can see, the toughest rules focus on the largest and most complex financial firms that, as we saw in the crisis, can destabilize the financial system and inflict lasting damage to the economy and constituents we serve. We have monitored Dodd-Frank's implementation carefully and pushed regulators to tailor rules to reduce unnecessary compliance burdens while maintaining appropriate protections and safeguards for consumers, investors, and taxpayers. We must continue to take this type of targeted approach instead of advancing measures like H.R. 1116, this bill that we are talking about right now, which would force the regulators to prioritize costs to Wall Street over benefits to consumers and the economy and expose rulemaking to needless litigation because of the nebulous standards in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the Financial Services Committee, ranking member of the Small Business Committee, and a senior member, of course, of our Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the deregulatory bills that are produced by the opposite side of the aisle, and I keep wondering why there are so many attempts to provide the banks and the financial institutions, the largest banks in this country, opportunities to make even more money. According to an estimate from Goldman Sachs, the Republicans' tax scam bill represents a giant windfall for Wall Street megabanks. So we are here with another bill to deregulate, basically to talk about tailoring. Let me just redefine this tailoring. It just means changing, modifying, coming up with ways that the banks can basically complain about their costs and their burdens. But my friends continue to basically support them in whatever efforts they want in order to make more money. This report that I just referred to estimates that all of the largest banks, eight of the largest banks, will receive $15 billion windfalls on their 2018 tax bill. This includes $3.7 billion for Wells Fargo, $3.5 billion for Bank of America, $3.3 billion for JPMorgan, $1.4 billion for Citigroup, and $1 billion for Goldman Sachs. What more do they want? How much more can you give them? What is the next deregulatory bill that you will come with on this floor? It is interesting to note that the Financial Services Committee is responsible for over 50 percent, or at least 50 percent, of all of the bills coming through the Rules Committee that come to the floor, which means that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have spent an inordinate amount of time coming up with legislation dealing with deregulation of these big banks. Now, we have a lot of things that we could be doing to protect consumers, working people, and families in that committee. I wish we would spend a lot more time on HUD. The homeless population in this country is expanding. It is exploding all over the country. In New York and California, in the Midwest--you name it--people are on the streets. Do you think we have been able to have a hearing on homelessness in this committee? No, because all of this time is spent on supporting the biggest banks in America and deregulating in ways that will cause them to be able to make more and more money. How much more do they want? How much more do they need? How much time is this Congress going to spend on trying to undo Dodd-Frank and kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? I don't know the answers to these questions, Mr. Speaker. And I wish they would answer me, but no, I know they are not going to. They are simply going to come and talk about tailoring. Well, tailoring just means changing, fixing in a way that will benefit the biggest banks. Mr. Speaker, I will let them continue with their deregulatory efforts. 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, I am perplexed and somewhat amused by the statement that the community banks are just withering on the vine. Well, let me just talk about what is happening in the banking community. Dodd-Frank is not hampering the banking sector at all. In 2016, the industry made record profits of $171 billion, and community banks are outperforming their larger peers. At the end of 2016, lending was up 8.3 percent for community banks and 4.8 percent for larger banks. Credit unions are expanding, and they have increased their membership by more than 16 million since 2010, an increase of 18 percent. We oftentimes talk about what we are doing to the community banks. But we always--you, rather, always have a way of making sure that big banks are attached to this deregulation that you say you want to do for community banks. All you have to do is amend this bill and make it apply only to community banks. Would the gentleman who is talking about what the ranking member should understand and should be thinking about be willing to amend the bill so that it only applies to community banks? That is rhetorical, and I won't ask for an answer. 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 was just reviewing this bill somewhat and it has come to my attention that this so-called tailoring, which really means modifying, changing, doing something different, is for each individual bank. So each individual bank could say: We do things this way, so we want a rule that is tailored especially for us. Another bank could say: We do things another way, and we want some separate rules just for us. And on and on for every bank. Is this what this is all about? Is this what this so-called tailoring is about? This tailoring, which is modifying, changing, basically deregulating in the interest of the big banks to make sure they can reduce their costs and get rid of what they would call their burdens? Are you really talking about having our regulators look at each bank and say: You do business a little bit different, so we are going to change the rules just to fit your bank? Well, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't seem to me as if this is plausible. This does not make good sense. I don't understand why my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in their deregulatory efforts, would even try this one. This one doesn't work. 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 am very pleased that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Congressman Lucas, enjoys engaging in these discussions also. I watched very closely his countenance, and I see that he is enjoining it even more than I ever dreamed he would. So let us continue with this very lively debate where we can at least lift the spirits of each other as we go through our daily work. Having said that, the chairman likes to say that we lose a community bank a day. However, last year, only eight banks failed. The other 230 banks merged with others, and I would like the chairman to even acknowledge that long before Dodd-Frank, we were losing a bank a day, and that trend had been going on for 30 years. So I do not wish us to think that something new and extraordinary is happening, that somehow we have come to a point in time in the banking world where banks are being lost on a daily basis in a way that they have not been lost before. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.