Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of Mrs. Mamie Williams. I join her family members and friends who gather on January 9, 2016, in Los Angeles, CA to commemorate this special day. Mamie Williams was born January 6, 1916, in Indianapolis, Indiana to Eugene and Helen Dedmon. She graduated from Crispus Attucks High School in 1933 and married Lefred Williams that same year. Mamie Williams was a woman of many talents and giftings. She was an accomplished pianist and her musical talent became well known throughout the community. She was also a gifted seamstress with an eye for fashion, as she made many of her family's clothes. She began her journey of becoming the Mother of 13 children in Indianapolis with the birth of her first son in 1934. In 1951, the Williams clan moved to Beaumont, California and finally to the greater Los Angeles area where the family resides today. Throughout her life, Mamie has been a devoted wife and mother who has always been there for her family. Perseverance, hard work, love and respect were just a few of the many lessons taught to those who have known her. In addition to being a Homemaker, Mamie was a member of several service organizations such as the Delta Mothers and the American Business Women Association. She also served 30 years as a volunteer for the Democratic Party where she worked at local polling places on voting day. Mamie was a member of the Women's Club at Washington Memorial Church where her husband served as a Bishop. Along with the rest of her family, she later became a member of the United Church of Religious Science in Los Angeles and was a graduate of the inaugural Science of Mind class taught by Dr. Hornaday. Mamie worked side by side for many years with her husband Lefred in the family owned business Youth Town Furniture & Appliances, started in 1969 on Crenshaw Blvd. in Los Angeles. The store became a staple in the local community until Lefred's retirement in 1985, and ultimate passing in 1987. Today Mamie's legacy includes 11 surviving children, 7 sons and daughters-in-law, 24 grandchildren, and 17 great-grandchildren. Mamie has led an outstanding life, highlighted by her love of family and service to her community. I wish her many more years of health and happiness.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank Congressman Polis for the time he has granted me. Mr. Speaker, after more than 2 years of obstruction by a vocal, ideologically driven minority that led to a 5-month shutdown of the Export-Import Bank, I could not be more pleased to rise and speak in strong support of the provision in the conference report that would finally put the Ex-Im Bank back in the business of supporting U.S. jobs. After having spoken with and having listened to the stories of countless users of the Ex-Im Bank, both in my district and across the country, I can tell you without a doubt that the 4-year reauthorization of the Bank in this conference report is absolutely necessary and essential to ensure that U.S. businesses, both large and small, can operate and survive in the global marketplace. From the loss of satellite contracts in California, to the many potential job losses across this country, to offers from our foreign competitors that have urged American exporters to take their operations to Canada or overseas to Europe and China, there is no question that the shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank has done great damage. In joining with Whip Hoyer, Leader Pelosi, Representatives Heck and Moore, as well as with Representatives Fincher and Lucas, we showed that a determined majority of Democrats and Republicans who work together will ultimately prevail. It is time to put an end to this wholly destructive and entirely unnecessary period that has caused us so much pain and fear and hopelessness for so many businesses and workers across this country whose livelihoods rely on the Ex-Im Bank. I urge the passage of the conference report.

Ms. WATERS of California

Ms. WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), a former insurance commissioner of California who has dealt with a lot of these issues.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members, all of the arguments that are used by the other side simply are not true. They claim that the CFPB does not have the authority. They do have the authority under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. They claim that they didn't use the right methodologies, the same that is used by the Justice Department. They claim that the dealers can't give discounts. That is absolutely not true. They can. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a young man that has been leading an effort on the floor of Congress for justice for minorities and women consistently.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, this is not about financial literacy. This is about raw discrimination. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He is a real fighter for freedom and justice.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from New York an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Stutzman is doing is trying to confuse people between a rule and a guidance. This is a guidance, and they are trying, through this legislation, to make guidance comply with the same kind of rules that the rules have to go through. So don't pay any attention to that. He is just trying to confuse people. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1737, which would impede the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's important work of regulating discriminatory auto lending practices and protecting minority borrowers. In spite of the fact that Chairman Hensarling just talked about a study, what he didn't tell you is that was a study that was done by the automobile industry, who is supporting this bill. H.R. 1737 would cancel important policy guidance the CFPB provided to lenders to help them comply with Federal fair lending laws. The bill also imposes burdensome restrictions on the issuance of any future auto lending guidance by requiring that the CFPB undergo a public notice and comment period and conduct cost-benefit studies before issuing guidance, requirements that have historically only been applied to agency rulemakings. These restrictions are clearly designed to substantially delay or effectively prevent the Bureau from issuing future antidiscrimination guidance to auto lenders, action that would undermine a lender's ability to comply with the law at the expense of minority borrowers. The long shadow of discrimination is still alive and well in some corners of the auto lending marketplace. The CFPB has secured nearly $140 million in relief to minority borrowers since December 2013 in landmark settlements against Ally Financial, Fifth Third Bank, and American Honda Finance Corporation, finding in each case that undisclosed dealer markups caused minority borrowers to overpay for their auto loans by an average of $200 over the life of the loan compared to similarly situated White borrowers, even when considering the borrower's creditworthiness. Mike Jackson, the CEO of the Nation's largest auto retailer, AutoNation, commended the CFPB's approach in its settlement with Honda, noting that other lenders should take a close look at the Honda settlement as a template for a solution. Much like Mr. Jackson, I believe that the CFPB is doing a commendable job of tackling a decades-old problem of minority borrowers not getting a fair deal when they obtain financing from dealerships. The Bureau's work in this regard should be supported, but instead, we are faced with H.R. 1737, yet another legislative proposal that would attempt to tie the Bureau's hands as it attempts to inform lenders of the steps that they can take to comply with Federal fair lending laws and to protect minority borrowers. I wouldn't care if everybody were treated the same way--you charge everybody too much--but, when you single out a certain segment of our society that happens to be minorities and you charge them more than other borrowers, it is a problem. H.R. 1737 follows a familiar script of industry-driven attempts to undermine the CFPB. Cost-benefit analysis, public notice and comment periods, outside rulemakings, unnecessary interagency consultation requirements are all designed to do the same thing, delay and undermine the important work of the CFPB. Instead of addressing the underlying discrimination in indirect auto lending that the CFPB is seeking to address, H.R. 1737 takes away an important tool for lenders seeking to follow the law who have been relying on the guidance for almost 3 years to develop their compliance policies. This is not a modest proposal designed to bring about transparency in the CFPB's oversight of auto lenders. Since issuing its guidance in March 2013, the CFPB has been transparent. It has provided industry with its models for identifying potential fair lending violations. Its supervisory manual describes exactly what the Bureau is seeking when conducting fair lending exams and supervisory highlights that clearly set forth the kinds of business practices that the Bureau will focus on when it examines an indirect auto lender. Furthermore, the CFPB's settlement agreements all follow a similar template that give lenders a glimpse into the kind of remediation that the Bureau will pursue should there be potential fair lending violations within a lender's portfolio. H.R. 1737's supporters have yet to identify what information any additional transparency would yield or what additional information lenders need to comply with Federal fair lending laws. If enacted, H.R. 1737 would actually place lenders at a disadvantage, just as scrutiny for fair lending violations from the CFPB and the DOJ intensifies. We should be working to support efforts to give industry as much information as possible so that they can comply with the law. H.R. 1737 does just the opposite, creating unnecessary uncertainty for lenders. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who is the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We must realize that what Mr. Garrett just shared with us is certainly not what the CFPB has done. As a matter of fact, what the CFPB has done, it has said: Lender, you cannot say that I will take X amount of percentage of interest; I will take 5, 10 percent interest; and, dealer, you can mark it up another 3, 4, 5 percent. So he has not exactly shared with you what happens with the CFPB. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, this business about consumers not being able to negotiate down, that somehow the car dealers can't give a discount is absolutely not true, absolutely not true. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Proponents of H.R. 1210 argue that if banks keep loans in portfolio, they have every incentive to make sure those mortgages are sustainable and good for both the bank and the borrowers. Therefore, loans held in portfolio should automatically receive the CFPB's legal safe harbor under the qualified mortgage rule. This simply ignores the history of the recent crisis. How can banks benefit from loans that are unsustainable in the long term? Let's look at how it really works: Step one, underwrite a mortgage with high, up-front fees. Though an honest broker may charge a 1 percent fee, a Better Business Bureau study from just before the crisis showed mortgage brokers often making 5 percent in up-front fees. On a $200,000 mortgage, that is $10,000 just for one loan. Other examples are appraisal fees, escrow fees, settlement fees, homeowners insurance. These fees could go back to the loan originator on an unlimited basis, and originators could still have legal protection under H.R. 1210. Step two, protect your bank from consumer defaults by requiring expensive private mortgage insurance. Step three, underwrite a large number of loans so that the fees add up--volume churn, volume churn. This has the added benefit of keeping regional home prices high by flooding the market with buyers. Step four, refuse to offer loan modifications. Banks can divest from loss mitigation processes and keep the profits from the high up-front fees and mortgage volumes. Step five, foreclose on the borrower and prevent them from suing the lender for lending violations. Once the borrower defaults, the lender can then repossess the collateral. If home prices have risen, they can sell the home for a profit all the while keeping their up-front fees. Meanwhile, H.R. 1210 would provide the lenders with a legal shield against CFPB enforcement or private fair lending litigation. Over and over, Republicans have attacked the CFPB and the important protections it provides to American consumers. Yet again, we are wasting time on the floor considering a bill the President has already pledged to veto when we could be doing other important business. What this bill does is very simple. It forgets all of the lessons of the financial crisis of 2008 and allows the country's biggest banks to put consumers and the economy at risk by bringing back complex, high- cost mortgages. The bill resurrects a practice that allows mortgage brokers to receive bonuses from the big banks in exchange for steering consumers into expensive, risky loans. After the financial crisis, the Department of Justice investigated these practices and found that minority communities were sought out by mortgage brokers and targeted for risky loans, even in the cases where the borrowers were qualified for prime loans. These are the same types of loans that destroyed the life savings of millions of Americans that ended up in foreclosure. And then when I studied foreclosure practices at the largest banks, I discovered that the same banks that made these mortgages were also guilty of robo-signing. Remember that? Robo-signing, wrongfully foreclosing on families that were up to date on their payments and fabricating paperwork to defraud consumers. The Dodd-Frank Act and the CFPB have reined in these predatory practices, yet I have had to come down to the floor over and over again to defend our work eliminating fraud in the financial system. We have already seen what happens when regulators do not do their jobs: consumers are left on the hook. We must defend the work we have done in the Dodd-Frank Act and the important work that CFPB continues to do. So certainly I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. It has been said over and over again by this side of the aisle that it appears that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are forgetting the lessons of 2008, forgetting what happened when we brought this country to a recession, almost a depression, forgetting the communities that have been destroyed with these foreclosures, forgetting these lessons, and coming back to the Congress of the United States disregarding all of the harm that we have caused to families and communities and presenting legislation that could put them back in the same position. Well, we wonder why our constituents and consumers don't trust us anymore. They don't trust us because of these kinds of attempts to present public policy that again could harm our economy and harm these families and these communities. They wonder why it is we continue down this path. We bailed out the biggest banks in America. We bailed out big insurance companies in America. We took the taxpayers' money, and we literally said to the people who had caused the harm: We forgive you. It is okay. We are going to make sure you stay in business. We are going to make sure that you have the ability to make money. And while the taxpayers watch this, still many are reeling from the loss of their homes. And homelessness has increased in my own city of Los Angeles, over 12 to 15 percent increase in homelessness. Some of those families are there because they are victims of the predatory practices that we allowed our regulators to turn their heads and bring harm to these families and these communities. I don't understand why you don't understand simply ability to repay. I don't understand why you would simply say let the biggest banks in America have portfolio loans if they don't have to be worried about qualified mortgages. I don't get it. Why don't you err, if you are going to err, on the side of the consumer? What is it about the biggest financial institutions in America that can promote this kind of public policy and have so many Members, particularly on the opposite side of the aisle, doing their bidding? I don't get it. I don't understand, and I don't understand why many of your constituents don't really know what is going on. Mr. Speaker, this is not easy work. As you know, working on the Financial Services Committee is extremely difficult and time-consuming work. Here we are divided: one side of the aisle going back to the risky days, another side of the aisle protecting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and saying that we have to protect that Bureau no matter how much you attack it. Again, I want to remind you, before Dodd-Frank and this centerpiece that was organized for reform, where we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, think about the name--Consumer, Financial, Protection, Bureau--protecting those who had been dropped off the protection agenda by our own regulators. So we created something, and we named it in such a way that consumers and our constituents would understand that we are sorry for what happened to them and we don't like the fact that we almost destroyed this economy. We support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We will not go back to those days prior to 2008; and, whether you like it or not, this Bureau is here to stay, and we are going to defend it with every ounce of energy that we have. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, continuing time in opposition, first, the notion that the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchases did not help the economy and job growth is simply false. The forceful and sustained actions that the Federal Reserve took in recent years to bring us out of a recession and into recovery are well-documented and cannot be overlooked. For instance, the November jobs report showed the economy added a whopping 271,000 jobs in October, pushing the unemployment rate down and, even further, to 5 percent and bringing the total number of private sector jobs created to more than 13.3 million over the past 68 months. Second, the amendment's implication that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has added to the U.S. national debt is also demonstrably false. Although raising revenue is not the purpose of monetary policy, as a consequence of the Federal Reserve's actions in recent years, it has generated substantial sums in the hundreds of billions of dollars which has returned to the Treasury. These sums have reduced the deficit, not contributed to it. Rather than relentlessly attacking the Federal Reserve and taking steps to undermine their independence, all of us really should be thanking them for what they have done to get our economy back on track. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am going to take the unusual step of reading a letter from Janet Yellen, the Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank. I take this unusual step because the letter is so well written and explains in such a profound way why the bill that is before us is dangerous and problematic. ``Dear Mr. Speaker and Madam Leader: I am writing regarding the House of Representatives' consideration of H.R. 3189, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act''--known as the FORM Act--``The FORM Act would severely impair the Federal Reserve's ability to carry out its congressional mandate to foster maximum employment and stable prices and would undermine our ability to implement policies that are in the best interest of American businesses and consumers. This legislation would severely damage the U.S. economy were it to become law. ``There are a number of harmful provisions in the FORM Act, but the provisions concerning the conduct of monetary policy are especially troubling. Section 2 of the bill would require the Federal Reserve to establish a mathematical formula or `directive policy rule' that would dictate how the Federal Open Market Committee adjusts the stance of monetary policy at every FOMC meeting. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be responsible for determining whether the rule adopted by the FOMC met all the criteria in the legislation. Any time the FOMC was judged not to be in compliance with the GAO-approved rule, the GAO would be required to conduct a full review of monetary policy and submit a report to the Congress. Moreover, the GAO would also be required to conduct a full review of monetary policy and report to the Congress any time the FOMC changed its policy rule. ``These provisions are significantly flawed for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the provisions effectively cast aside the bipartisan approach toward monetary policy oversight developed by the Congress in the late 1970s. Under that approach, the Congress establishes the long- run objectives for monetary policy but affords the Federal Reserve a considerable degree of independence in how it goes about achieving those statutory goals, thus ensuring that the conduct of monetary policy is insulated from political influence. This framework is now recognized as a fundamental principle of central banking around the world. The provisions of the FORM Act, in contrast, would effectively put the Congress and the GAO squarely in the role of reviewing short- run monetary policy decisions and in a position to, in real time, influence the monetary policy deliberations leading to those decisions. ``Conducting monetary policy by strictly adhering to the prescriptions of a simple rule would lead to poor economic outcomes. There is no consensus among economists or policymakers about a simple policy rule that is best suited to cover a wide range of scenarios. For example, even during the period known as the Great Moderation, in the 1980s and 1990s, when a simple rule might have been expected to work well, the actual level of the Federal funds rate often diverged substantially from the level prescribed by the reference rule included in the FORM Act. Indeed, for much of this period, monetary policy was actually tighter than what would have been the case under that rule. ``Even more tellingly, no simple policy rule has yet been devised that would adequately address the effective lower bound on the policy rate--a constraint that has been binding in the United States since late 2008. Had the FOMC been compelled to operate under a simple policy rule for the past six and a half years, the unemployment experience of that period would have been substantially more painful than it already was, and inflation would be even further below the FOMC's 2 percent objective. Indeed, a recent study by the Federal Reserve economists suggests that the current unemployment rate would still be above 6 percent and inflation would now be running somewhat below zero, if the FOMC had not taken the actions it did but rather had followed the reference rule and made it clear that it would do so in the future. In other words, millions of Americans would have suffered unnecessary spells of joblessness over this period, generating enormous amounts of personal and collective damage that could have been avoided--and, in fact, was avoided because we had the latitude to use our available tools responsibly and forcefully. ``In addition to allowing the GAO to conduct a review specifically related to the `directive policy rule,' Section 13 of the FORM Act also allows GAO to more broadly review and analyze the monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve at any time. This provision would politicize monetary policy and bring short-term political pressures into the deliberations of the FOMC by putting into place real-time second guessing of policy decisions. Such action would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and likely lead to an increase in inflation fears and market interest rates, a diminished status of the dollar in global financial markets, and reduced economic and financial stability. ``The provision is based on a false premise--that the Federal Reserve is not subject to an audit. To the contrary, under existing law, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve System are audited annually by an independent accounting firm under the supervision of the Inspector General for the Board. ``These audited financial statements are made publicly available and provided to Congress annually. The GAO may also conduct an audit of the Board's financial statements and of transactions that the Federal Reserve conducts in the course of its lending and other activities. In addition, each week, the Federal Reserve publishes its balance sheet and charts of recent balance sheet trends as well as every security the Federal Reserve holds along with each security's CUSIP number. Moreover, as specified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Federal Reserve now releases detailed transaction level information for all open market operations and discount window with a 2-year lag. ``I am concerned about other provisions in the FORM Act as well, including the debilitating restrictions on the Federal Reserve's emergency lending authorities. In the face of a future crisis--where collapse of the financial system is on the scale of the Great Depression or the recent financial crisis--I believe it is essential that the Federal Reserve have the emergency lending powers necessary in those circumstances to support the flow of credit to households and businesses and mitigate harm to the U.S. economy. The FORM Act would essentially repeal the Federal Reserve's remaining ability to act in a crisis. I am also deeply troubled by provisions related to the Federal Reserve's supervisory responsibilities, particularly those that would undermine the strength and effectiveness our stress tests and impede our ability to advocate internationally for standards that are in the best interest of U.S. businesses and consumers. ``Throughout my career and certainly during my many years working with the Federal Reserve System, I have been an advocate for greater openness and transparency. As Chair, I remain committed to these important issues. Accountability and transparency of public institutions are critical in a democratic society. Unfortunately, the FORM Act attempts to increase transparency and accountability through misguided provisions that would expose the Federal Reserve to short- term political pressures. For these reasons, I urge the House not to adopt the FORM Act. The bill would severely impair the Federal Reserve's ability to carry out its congressional mandate and would be a grave mistake, detrimental to the economy and the American people.'' I don't think it could be better stated. I think the letter that I just read from Janet Yellen tells it all. It simply warns us about the danger of this bill. It not only warns us. It does it in such a way that everybody can understand it and would not want to put this economy and this country at such a risky position. I am hopeful that the Members will hear this. We will make copies available to everyone. Vote against this bill. Furthermore, there is a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget: ``H.R. 3189 would establish requirements for policy rules, codify blackout periods of the Federal Open Market Committee, establish a cost-benefit requirement for other rulemakings by the Federal Reserve Board, and establish numerous, burdensome reporting requirements for the Federal Reserve Board and its members. The Administration therefore strongly opposes H.R. 3189. ``The Federal Reserve is an independent entity designed to be free from political pressures, and its independence is key to its credibility and its ability to act in the long-term interest of the Nation's economic health. One of the most problematic provisions in the bill would require the Comptroller General to audit the conduct of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Open Market Committee. The operations of the Federal Reserve are already subject to numerous audit requirements that ensure it is accountable to the Congress and the American people. The only aspect of the Federal Reserve's operations not subject to audit is its monetary policy decisionmaking, and for good reason. Subjecting the Federal Reserve's exercise of monetary policy authority to audits based on political whims of Members of the Congress--of either party--threatens one of the central pillars of the Nation's financial system and economy, and would almost certainly have negative impacts on the Federal Reserve's work to promote price stability and full employment. ``H.R. 3189 also would impose numerous, burdensome requirements for the Federal Reserve Board rulemaking authorities, including the imposition of a duplicative requirement that the Federal Reserve Board undertake a proscriptive cost-benefit analysis and a post-adoption impact assessment when promulgating rules. When a Federal agency, including an independent agency such as the Federal Reserve, promulgates a regulation, the agency must adhere to the robust substantive and procedural requirements of Federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act, among other statutes. Additionally, Executive Order 13579 encourages independent regulatory agencies to conduct reasoned cost-benefit analysis, engage in public participation to the extent feasible, and conduct a systematic retrospective review of regulations.'' I can't read it all, but if the President was presented with H.R. 3189, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the most populous regions of the country have adequate representation within the Federal Reserve system, I am concerned that the amendment does not fully contemplate the implications of adding the additional reserve districts. For example, the amendment would add a Federal Reserve District headquartered in San Francisco, a city which is already home to a Federal Reserve bank. Furthermore, the current Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has a number of branches located throughout the West, including one in Los Angeles, a city which would be home to another Federal Reserve Bank under the gentleman from Florida's amendment. The amendment also does not address how the new Reserve Banks would participate in the current rotation on the Federal Open Market Committee, a matter which is prescribed by law under section 12(a) of the Federal Reserve Act. Rather than add an additional Reserve Bank or additional Reserve Banks to the Federal Reserve system, I respectfully submit that the desired effects of this amendment to provide greater diverse range of views across our country could more usefully be achieved without increasing the number of regional Reserve Banks and within the confines of the current system.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to whether or not the chairman has more speakers.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I cringe at the thought that the documents from the FOMC meeting of 2012 would be released to the Members of Congress. They would cause some volatility in the markets and shake up this country and cause such harm that everybody ought to be alarmed at the thought. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentlewoman from Wisconsin an additional 1 minute.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on the Financial Services Committee.