Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing my colleagues talk about one size does not fit all and they keep trying to make a case for the community banks, but they always tie the community banks to these deregulatory efforts so that the big banks can benefit from it. When I take a look at the Dodd-Frank requirements and how they target the largest banks, let's take a look at those banks that are less than $10 billion in assets. They don't have to comply with all of these regulations. If they are a little bit bigger, they are between $10 billion and $50 billion, they have to comply with just a few more, but not as many as the large banks. If they are $50 billion to $250 billion, yes, we have a few more requirements for them. And then the big boys, the big banks, yes, we have more oversight and more requirements. Do you know why? Because they put this entire economy at risk if they fail. When we talk about doing all of the stress-testing, we are stress- testing on these banks because we know that, in the event of an economic downfall, if they don't have the capital, if they don't have the kinds of things that would keep them safe, they could trigger another recession. So stop saying that one size does not fit all and trying to make people believe that somehow we are requiring the same thing of the small community bank as we are requiring of the big bank. It is absolutely not true. 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, Members, and to my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, I am going to take a couple of minutes to bore you. I am going to bore you with all of the groups who are opposed to your legislation. I heard one of your Members say that you have tremendous support. I didn't hear where that support is coming from, but I do believe that probably the biggest banks in America are supporting your legislation. So please allow me to share with you who is opposing your legislation. Allied Progress; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Americans for Financial Reform; the Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending; Center for American Progress; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Justice and Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union; Demos; the Florida Alliance for Consumer Protection; Indivisible; Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid Incorporated; the Kentucky Equal Justice Center; the NAACP; the National Association of Consumer Advocates; the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys; the National Center for Law and Economic Justice; the National Coalition for the Homeless; the National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients; the National Consumers League; the National Fair Housing Alliance; the National Urban League; the People's Action Institute; PolicyLink; Progressive Congress Action Fund; Prosperity Now; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; Reinvestment Partners; Statewide Poverty Action Network; Tennessee Citizen Action; U.S. PIRG; West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy; the Woodstock Institute; and the World Privacy Forum. If you have time, I would like you to share with me who is supporting your legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the majority is continuing to move to roll back important financial regulations at a furious pace. Week after week, the majority pushes harmful bills through the House. This bill is just the latest example. In recent months, this deregulatory frenzy has included House passage of bills that, among other things, allow payday lenders to evade State interest cap rates, decrease operational risk capital requirements and roll back enhanced prudential standards for the Nation's largest banks, weaken consumer protections for mortgages, undermine efforts to combat discriminatory and predatory lending, reduce consumer privacy protections, and threaten the stability of our financial system and economy. Last week, Republicans pushed through H.R. 4607, another bill that is designed to weaken rules considered inconvenient by the financial services industry, despite the harm that could result for consumers and the economy. As we have discussed, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 1116, would allow large financial institutions to challenge financial regulations in court if they believe them not to be uniquely tailored to their business needs. It includes a provision that would allow these challenges for all of the financial regulations put in place following the financial crisis, making all of the important Dodd-Frank reforms targets. Of course, the legislation is totally silent on the need for regulators to consider the interest of consumers and to ensure the stability of our economy as they conduct rulemakings. Ultimately, this bill would serve to put consumers and the financial system at risk by subjecting important regulations to endless litigation. It is designed to block and bog down important rules that were put in place following the financial crisis to protect consumers, investors, and our economy. I would simply urge Members to oppose H.R. 1116, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Representative Louie Gohmert.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members will have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, as this month is Women's History Month, it is my honor to rise today to recognize my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), as she becomes the longest serving woman in the history of the United States House of Representatives. On March 18, 2018, Congresswoman Kaptur will have served in the House for 35 years, or a total of 12,858 days. While Congresswoman Kaptur earns a notable place in American history for her length of service, her true accomplishment is the profound impact that she has had on this Nation through her legislative work, her leadership, her representation of the northern Ohio district, and her steadfast commitment to addressing critically important issues. I think about Congresswoman Kaptur every evening that I am in Washington, D.C., because when I leave the Capitol, I drive past the marvelous beautiful World War II national memorial, which would not exist but for the tireless work of Congresswoman Kaptur. After being approached by a constituent, Congresswoman Kaptur first proposed legislation in 1987. She began a yearlong effort to have that legislation enacted into law, and turned the World War II monument into a reality. Congresswoman Kaptur's commitment to that project symbolizes what her colleagues know about her. Marcy Kaptur is one of the hardest working Members of the United States Congress, and she is one of the most dedicated advocates for the people and the values that she represents. Congresswoman Kaptur is a community organizer and a serious public policymaker. She serves on the House Appropriations Committee, where she is an incredibly powerful voice for appropriate spending levels for programs and projects important to working families across the country. She serves as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies, where she has been tremendously impactful on promoting U.S. energy independence and the protection of the natural resources. Congresswoman Kaptur previously served on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, which is now known as the Committee on Financial Services. As the current ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, I am grateful that Congresswoman Kaptur has not lost interest in financial issues. In fact, she has remained extremely engaged on issues pertaining to Wall Street. She has been a leader in responding to issues that arose or were painfully identified during the financial crisis. Congresswoman Kaptur and I regularly speak about financial services matters. She shares articles and materials with me about key individuals on Wall Street. She finds and shares information with me on individuals' and firms' involvement in creating financial products or engaging in activities that might be harmful to consumers. I am thankful to have the benefit of her thoughts on these matters. Congresswoman Kaptur has the courage of her convictions even in the face of fierce opposition. Since the 1990s, the Congresswoman has been a proponent for the reestablishment of the Glass-Steagall barriers between investment banking and traditional depository banks. Although her legislation on this matter has been considered controversial, Congresswoman Kaptur has stood by her convictions out of a sincere desire for protecting working families and Main Street over the interests of Wall Street. Congresswoman Kaptur supports policies that are good for her district without hesitation. For instance, she fought tirelessly to combat threats to Lake Erie. Congresswoman Kaptur is a strong advocate in so many areas like national security, energy independence, and support for the Armed Forces. Her attention to important issues, her dedication, her skills as a legislator, and her work ethic should serve as an example for all public servants. I am proud and honored to call Marcy Kaptur not only my colleague, but my friend. So I would like to say congratulations to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur for taking her place in American history as the longest serving woman in the House. I would like to say to the Congresswoman that I am not so sure that I should have worked with others to sneak up on her tonight and make this a surprise, and I know that, in doing that, she has been sitting there thinking about working on and coming up with things that should be said about Wall Street. But tonight we are talking about Marcy Kaptur, we are not talking about Wall Street. We will talk about that later on. But let me just say that the gentlewoman has been a wonderful and extremely acknowledgeable voice and someone who understands the history, not only of Wall Street, but many of the players who have played over the years who were responsible for some of the problems that caused us to have the recession that we got involved in in 2008. So I thank the gentlewoman for her caring about Main Street, and I thank the gentlewoman for knowing and spending time on these financial issues despite the fact she has so many other things on her plate. Again, I feel very honored to be her friend. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the dean of the Ohio delegation.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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 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 rise in opposition to H.R. 4607, the so-called Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. So instead of advancing legislation that improves our financial regulatory framework, the Republican majority is pushing yet another bill that is a giveaway to Wall Street and predatory lenders. Let's be clear. This bill is intended to dismantle rules considered inconvenient by the financial services industry. If this bill were enacted, financial services regulators would be forced to spend more time and resources on backward-looking reviews and deregulating the financial services industry rather than strengthening protections for consumers and the economy. Allow me to explain. The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, or EGRPRA, currently requires the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the OCC to conduct a review of the regulations that they have issued in order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. The banking regulators conduct this review every 10 years, but until now, this review has been a relatively balanced, careful assessment that the banking regulators have done twice in the last two decades, and the regulators have taken this process seriously. The last review took about 3 years to complete. It involved field hearings and public engagement. The final review included many balanced and thoughtful recommendations to improve rules. Many of these would provide relief for community banks and credit unions but in a way that also maintains safeguards for consumers and protects the interests of the public and the broader economy. Unfortunately, H.R. 4607, this bill, would make three major mistakes in changing the current review process. First, this bill actually requires regulators to change regulations so that they are less costly and burdensome for ``covered persons.'' Well, who are these covered persons? Are they the millions of consumers who were harmed by Wells Fargo's scheme to open fraudulent accounts without their knowledge? Were they? No. Are they the many consumers who learned just a few days ago that Citigroup violated the law by charging them too much interest on their credit cards? No, no. Are these covered persons in this bill the Latino or African-American families who were discriminated against by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and so many other banks steering them into more costly mortgages when they qualified for more affordable loans? No, not at all. Are they--the ones who are being protected--are they seniors or servicemembers who fall prey to payday lenders that trap them in a cycle of debt? No. Are they college graduates who are harassed by debt collectors for their student loan debt? No. Under this bill, Mr. Speaker, covered persons are defined as ``any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service; and any affiliate of''--such--``person . . . if such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.'' You know what that means? You know who these so-called covered persons in this bill are who they are talking about? That means Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, payday lenders, mortgage brokers, debt collectors, and thousands of other financial companies. All of these companies would get easier rules that limit their costs and burdens without appropriately considering the impact they are going to have on their customers. And this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to strengthen protections for consumers where there might be deficiencies or gaps in our regulatory framework. Second, unlike the other banking regulators, which are tasked with ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial services sector, the Consumer Bureau's unique mission is the protection of consumers and of ensuring that the consumer marketplace operates in a fair, transparent, and competitive manner. Although it may make sense for the banking agencies to periodically review their prudential rules, with a focus on their regulated entities, the Consumer Bureau should be making sure that its rules are appropriately protecting consumers and the interests of the public, not the big financial corporations. In addition, the Consumer Bureau is already subject to unique accountability and oversight measures that the other financial regulators are not. These special checks and balances include the requirement that the Consumer Bureau have small business review panels as a part of its rulemaking process and the ability of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, that is, FSOC, to repeal any of its final rules. And the Consumer Bureau is already required to review all of the significant rules within 5 years of the time they go into effect, but in a balanced--balanced--manner. The third problem with H.R. 4607 is that it would make it harder for the regulators to do their jobs. The bill would require a comprehensive review of all banking and consumer protection regulations once every 7 years instead of every decade. If regulators take these reviews as seriously as their previous reviews, as I believe they would, then that would mean they would be tied up spending nearly half of each 7-year cycle doing regulatory reviews instead of supervising their regulated entities and enforcing the law. This bill would impose an unbalanced review process on regulators that favors industries' wishes--favors industries' wishes over consumers and the economy. The methodology in this bill promotes deregulation. That is what this is all about. This is a bill about deregulation instead of creating a robust process to identify gaps or deficiencies in oversight that harm consumers, undermine the safety and soundness of our financial system, or jeopardize the country's financial stability. So I cannot support a bill that forces the Consumer Bureau to weaken rules for Wall Street and payday lenders. I am talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4607. 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 knew that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would basically refer to small banks. This is what is normally done when we see deregulatory efforts being made. They talk about how they are trying to help small and community banks, and they fail to talk about the major financial institutions that I have talked about in my presentation that are the beneficiaries, also, of this deregulatory effort that is being put forth. When I take a look at the existing law now and the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, I see that their mission is to conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. This deregulatory bill that we have before us goes a lot further. As I said, it is about deregulation, and it is about reducing cost and liability risk. This does not benefit our consumers at all. Again, what we would do in the passage of this bill is simply open up opportunities for the big banks and financial institutions to get rid of the kind of oversight, the kind of laws that we have worked so hard for because it is inconvenient for them or it interferes with their bottom line in some way. So I do not want our Members to be tricked or fooled to think, number one, this is simply about further getting rid of paperwork or that this is about supporting the small banks. This is about new ways by which to deregulate so that the big banks that are now found to be defrauding, found to be discriminating, found to be doing things like Wells Fargo has done, this is about deregulation that will further enhance their ability to do the kinds of things that we claim to be so opposed to and that harm our consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that they are now including by way of H.R. 4607 should be looked at very carefully. First of all, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They want to get rid of it. They have tried, time and time again, to undermine it in so many ways. The President has sent Mr. Mulvaney over there, who is supposed to be over at the Office of Management and Budget, to basically destroy it. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the Members of Congress to be tricked or fooled that somehow this is helpful that they are bringing in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. What they want to do is tie the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and basically change their mission from protection for consumers to deregulation for the biggest banks in America. Why do we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? That is the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reform legislation that we worked so hard on. Are we forgetting about what happened in 2008? Are with forgetting about the recession that was caused by the big banks who had been involved with all of these exotic products and ways by which they were enticing would-be homeowners to try and get mortgages? We can't forget about all of that. We have to know that not only did we have a recession, we were headed for a depression. Dodd-Frank reform has gone a long way toward eliminating some of the bad practices that were in place that got us into that situation in the first place. Now, little by little, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep trying to creep in with new ways that they can support these big banks and financial institutions and deregulate and let them get in the position again where they are tricking our consumers, where they are coming up with these exotic products that caused our consumers to eventually get into foreclosure, and that would allow the big banks again, like Wells Fargo, to come up with all of these tricks that they use in order to enhance their bottom line. I think we are smarter than this, and I don't think that we are going to go for this legislation that is just another way to open the doors to deregulate. 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. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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, before I proceed with my closing, I would just like to make a few comments about some of the information that was shared with us by Members on the opposite side of the aisle. I want to remind them that these poor little banks that you are talking about, which include all of the big banks in America, made record profits in 2016--more than $170 billion--and they are going to make billions more from that tax bill, that tax scam giveaway to Wall Street. Lending is up 75 percent since 2010. So when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle continue to talk about how the banks are suffering, I don't know who they are talking about. As a matter of fact, the real bipartisanship of this committee is about community banks, and Democrats have led and will continue to lead on every way and everything that we can do for community banks. Mr. Speaker, I notice that when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle come in with deregulation, they frame it in such a way that you would think that it is all about community banks, when, in fact, they always attach anything they do for community banks to the biggest banks in America. So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4607 demonstrates just how much my colleagues on the other side of the aisle value the interests of Wall Street over families and consumers on Main Street. This bill would direct the banking, credit union, and consumer protection regulators to loosen their rules to benefit bad actors on Wall Street. The bill doesn't even allow regulators to consider how to improve safeguards to better protect consumers. It is absurd that we are here today discussing yet another bill that leads to massive deregulation and seeks to tip the scales in favor of the financial industry. The interests of the public are what we should be focused on. This bill is yet another piece of the harmful and reckless Republican agenda. Only a few months ago, Republicans jammed their tax scam legislation through this Chamber. They added $1.8 trillion to the Federal debt in order to line the pockets of Wall Street and other megacorporations with billions in tax cuts, leaving families on Main Street and generations of their children just to pick up the tab. Democrats rejected that terrible piece of legislation and should now reject H.R. 4607 as well. Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 200 consumer civil rights, investor, retiree, community, labor, faith-based, and business groups said that H.R. 4607, ``contains no consideration of the public benefits that are the justification for creating the regulations in the first place, and which regulators should be seeking to preserve. Any mandate to tailor regulations must include consideration of public benefits, rather than being a one-sided directive to reduce business costs.'' I agree. For Members who are concerned with maintaining strong protections, I would highlight that Trump's OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, has been illegally installed as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is working every day to dial back the important work of the Consumer Bureau from within. Congress should not be giving Mr. Mulvaney, or anyone the President eventually appoints and is confirmed to serve as the next Director of the Consumer Bureau, a green light to gut consumer protections and reduce the Consumer Bureau's ability to hold bad actors accountable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4607, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 strong opposition to H.R. 4296. This bill is simply another rollback of rules put in place after the financial crisis. It would undermine the stability of our country's largest financial banks by restricting the way regulators set capital requirements for these institutions. Before I get into why this bill is problematic, let me take a moment to clarify what capital is and what it is not. Some have said that capital is money that is held on the side or in reserve and cannot be used to lend to borrowers. This couldn't be further from the truth. Capital is not a reserve. Capital refers to the terms of the financing a bank receives. In the most simplistic example, a bank receives funds from customers making deposits, loans it receives from other institutions, and stock it has issued to investors. The bank uses all of these sources of funding to make mortgages and other loans to customers. However, there are important differences. Bank debt has terms like regular interest payments that, if it stops paying, the bank fails. However, a bank can stop paying dividends on a stock without it failing. Banks funded with lots of debt are described as being higher leveraged and risky because only a small drop in the value of their mortgages and other assets can cause them to default. Funding a bank through higher levels of capital makes the bank stronger, because even if the loans it has made lose value, the bank can avoid default by temporarily halting payments to their investors or lowering the value of the stock. H.R. 4296 would impact something called operational risk capital, which is the capital used to cover the possibility of losses to the largest banks caused from their operational failures, such as rogue traders, fraudulent sales practices, and cyber breaches. H.R. 4296 would diminish this type of capital, which only about 10 megabanks are required to maintain under an enhanced framework, by restricting the information that regulators can use to determine the appropriate balance of safe funding, like bank stock versus debt, that megabanks should have to address potential operational losses that may occur. The bill would direct regulators to primarily consider a megabank's current activities and not their past behavior when setting the capital level, thereby enabling the bank to take on more debt. According to Americans for Financial Reform, a nonpartisan coalition of more than 200 civil rights, consumer, labor, business, investor, faith-based, and civic and community groups: ``While current activities are obviously central to operational risk, and are already treated as such, the recent loss experience of banks is the best concrete evidence regulators usually have as to the magnitude of current and future risks. Recent past activities are also vital to understanding the future exposures of the bank, including potential legal exposures.'' Thus, this change to how regulators determine the appropriate amount megabanks should maintain for operational risk is imprudent. A megabank's past actions are often the best indicators of future potential risks that it may experience. Well, memories seem to quickly fade in Congress about the problems that led to the last financial crisis, so let me list some of the examples of past megabanks' operational failures by J.P. Morgan's ``London Whale'' trades and Wells Fargo's long list of violations that have ripped off millions of consumers, including those harmed by their fraudulent accounts scandal. Given these examples of past misconduct, the megabanks have collectively paid more than $160 billion in fines since 2010. It is absurd to suggest that their past behavior shouldn't be taken into account when determining how much capital they should hold. Even the Basel Committee, which several of President Trump's appointees now serve on, agreed in December, when they finalized Basel III reforms from where the operational risk capital originates, writing: ``Banks which have experienced greater operational risk losses historically are assumed to be more likely to experience operational risk losses in the future.'' So it makes no sense to have a forward-looking assessment that deemphasizes a megabank's past failures in setting these capital requirements. It is almost as if this bill is saying: ``Don't pay any attention to that. No matter how bad they have been, don't look at their past performance. We don't want you to look at that, because we know if you do, you will make a different decision about capital requirements.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill's changes would cost the Federal Government $22 million. This calculation was based on the fact that the capital change would not only affect the bank's probability of failure, but also the magnitude of future losses to our entire financial stability, which, in turn, affects the overall U.S. economy. This is not a bill to help community banks. It has nothing to do with community banks. Let me repeat that. This is not a bill to help community banks, so what we wish we would not hear is someone coming up talking about how it is going to hurt community banks. That is often used as an excuse. When we are trying to rein in these megabanks, they always lop in the community banks with it. This has nothing to do with community banks. This is a bill for the 10 largest banks in this country. So the megabanks on Wall Street are hoping Congress will let them take on riskier debt by directing the regulators to downplay, if not outright ignore, their recent and extensive operational failures. Mr. Jamie Dimon, the CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase, wrote in his 2016 annual letter to shareholders that: ``Operational risk capital should be significantly modified, if not eliminated.'' Let's think about it like this: most adult consumers in this country have a credit score. Banks use those credit scores to determine whether or not to lend to a consumer and, if so, under what terms. These credit scores are based on a consumer's what? A consumer's past payment history, because this information is considered one of the best indicators of a person's likelihood to default on future credit obligations. Now, we all know that credit scores are problematic, but no one, including me, is proposing to get rid of them, because we can all agree that past payment information is a good indicator of how someone will handle credit in the future, but this bill takes that principle and throws it out the window when it comes to the 10 largest banks in this country. Keep in mind, these same banks will continue to use a consumer's credit score for underwriting and rating of mortgages and other consumer loans, but the megabanks themselves are asking this Congress not to judge them on their past behavior, as they judge consumers, and to let them have a clean slate moving forward. If that isn't a double standard, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is. Mr. Speaker, bank profits reached an all-time record high in 2016. Compensation for Wall Street CEOs has shot back up to levels last seen in 2006, and business lending is up 75 percent since 2010. All this happened while U.S. banks added more than $700 billion in capital to absorb potential losses. There is a simple reason for this: healthy banks lend. U.S. banks also lent significantly more than their European counterparts, because our banks boosted their capital levels, while the European banks did not. So despite Republicans' ``Chicken Little'' arguments about the dire consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory reforms, the data speaks for itself. Banks are making more money than ever and lending more than ever, but apparently that is not enough. So I am here again today appealing for Congress to continue to uphold the commonsense safeguards for consumers, the broader economy, and the megabanks. I reject this Wall Street giveaway. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial Services Committee.