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've 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 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 forced -- focused, rather, on measures that strengthen consumer protections, provide tailored responsible r

megabanks. we ordered the fed to keep a closer eye on the big banks, to use their power to make sure the largest global banks did not again crash the economy. congress instructed that the fed apply the strictest protections to the biggest banks, those with more than $50 billion in assets. we know that. when the fed implemented these rules, they applied some standards to banks that had more than $50 billion across the globe. but for global banks that have more than $50 billion in the u.s., the fed applied the strongest standards for foreign banks with not only trillions worldwide but systemic operations in the united states, the fed wrote rules that are strict as those for our domestic megabanks. standards and former fed governor dan tur iillo called standard prevention measures. we only import swiss chocolate, not swiss bank failures. these special measures are important. last year, the office of financial research released a report showing that foreign banks in the u.s. are riskier than similar

was marketed to the public as a bill to address excesses and problems on wall street by the big megabanks of our country. but its provisions hit hardest on main street. i actually, as i've said, held a news conference in boise, idaho, my home state, on main street in boise, idaho, and said the bull's eye, the crosshairs of this bill and the bull's eye of this bill are on main street. not wall street. but what's happened in the last ten years? the wall street banks have been phenomenally profitable. they have been very successful. and the smaller banks, the credit unions, the community banks, even the regional banks have been hammered. we are losing credit unions and, more specifically, consumer -- excuse me -- community banks across this nation at an alarming pace. and the reason, the primary reason is the phenomenally significant increased regulatory burden that they face. i've had colleagues of mine -- i've heard colleagues of mine on the floor in the last couple of days talking about specific community banks and credit unions in their states that have had so much pressure put on them,

there is very, very little in this bill that reaches to the megabanks or the bigger banks and, in fact, the primary focus is on credit unions and community banks and the smaller tier of our regional banks. again, it addresses the fact that many of us have talked about for years and that is that although a regulatory system today was passed and enacted in terms of alleging that it was to address the abuses on wall street many of the targets and recipients of the impact of the bill of the regulatory system were smaller banks and credit unions and the like. that did not have the capacity to deal with it in fact did not present either the business models for the risk models that were required to deal with on regulatory basis. this bill seeks to right size the regulatory system in our country and to allow our community banks and credit unions to nourish and by doing so to provide the necessary and appropriate access to capital and to credit that the people who live in our communities should have. with that let me stop and throw it open to questions. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> first of al

i know that the ranking member speaks frequently of the wall street megabanks. they have done quite fine under dodd-frank. the ranking member likes to elude to their profitability. listen, i hope every business in america can find some way to be profitable, but that's not the question. the real question is the profitability of our constituents. half of whom are living paycheck to paycheck. and it's those constituents that we care about when we lose an opportunity for them to capitalize their american dream . when i hear from colton in terrell, texas, in the fifth district that i proudly represent who says, you know what, me and my wife have been unable to get a mortgage due to credit. we're 25 to 30 years old. we have good credit but we're getting denied. that is everything -- that has everything to due with the regulatory burden, mr. speaker. i heard from sarah in my district. she said, i'd like to refinance with cashout option to fix storm damage to my property and home but i found out it's not an option for me because the government doesn't believe i should b

finally, our bill will not gut oversight of foreign merchant megabanks operating in the united states, such as bark -- barclays and deutsche bank. these three institutions which have over $150 billion in assets, will be subject to 165 of dodd-frank. that means that foreign banks will still be subject to foreign banks stress test requirements, liquidity stress testing and basel iii requirements. it subjects foreign banks u.s. operations to requirements similar to those imposed on u.s. banks. chairman paul, again, in the march senate banking committee hearing was asked about this, and he said he did not believe that this bill would exempt foreign banks from tough oversight under dodd-frank. additionally, the substitute amendment for this bill has affirmed that large foreign banks do not escape dodd-frank supervision. i think it's really important that we debate the actual merits of this bill and not the bogeyman merits, the statements that this bill will somehow lead to catastrophic downfall of our financial system. as i said, even barney frank disagrees with that evaluation of this bil

would a megabank in cleveland or columbus or dayton do the same kind of thing? based on the record of secretary mnuchin's bank, onewest and others during the crisis, we can be pretty sure we know the answer to that and the answer is no, they won't. the bill before us gives lenders a pass on the requirement to escrow for taxes and insurance when making subprime loans. it doesn't cost real money to the lender to put money aside for taxes and insurance. it's part of the calculation when you buy a house. most of us want our taxes and insurance included so we have a more predictable stream of outflow, if you will, we know how much we're paying each month and it doesn't change. it may change once a year, but it doesn't change often. by definition, someone taking out a subprime loan is at a higher risk of default. escrow helps a borrower plan for the expenses of taxes and insurance and protects the lender from unexpected losses. we're stripping that out of the bill. we're stripping that -- that's in the bill. we're stripping that out of the law. former fdic chair sheil

would a megabank in cleveland or columbus or dayton do the same kind of thing? based on the record of secretary mnuchin's bank, onewest and others during the crisis, we can be pretty sure we know the answer to that and the answer is no, they won't. the bill before us gives lenders a pass on the requirement to escrow for taxes and insurance when making subprime loans. it doesn't cost real money to the lender to put money aside for taxes and insurance. it's part of the calculation when you buy a house. most of us want our taxes and insurance included so we have a more predictable stream of outflow, if you will, we know how much we're paying each month and it doesn't change. it may change once a year, but it doesn't change often. by definition, someone taking out a subprime loan is at a higher risk of default. escrow helps a borrower plan for the expenses of taxes and insurance and protects the lender from unexpected losses. we're stripping that out of the bill. we're stripping that -- that's in the bill. we're stripping that out of the law. former fdic chair sheil

body is falling all over sell to help the bigiggest bank, thisis bill also weakens the for foreign megabanksperating in the united states. the sasame banks that repeatedly viviolate u.s. laws. amy: so is this bank will a done dealal, alexis gololdstein? >> absolutely not. a lot of those e who voted yeyen absolutely change their minds when this hits the senate floor. the congressional budget office in my opinion gave them all of the justificatioion they n needo change t their vote. the cbo said this doeses make future bailouts more likely and again there'e's a 5050% chance t it alslso helps really large bas like j.p. morgan and citibank. if folks are fired up about this, you should call your senators and let them know to on the bill. >> think progress reports many of the banks getting really from this bill also finance assault weapons? can you explain this? >> think progress had a great article listing specifically all of the banks that financed assault weapons manufacturers. there are at least 12 banks on that list that also benefit from this ill by my count. these are banks like citizens an

this bill weakens stress tests for all large banks, even wall street megabanks that are designated as global, systematically important banks like j.p. morgan chase. $2.5 trillion in assets. $2.5 trillion is -- is 2,500 billion, and a billion is a thousand million. that's hard to calculate. that's a lot of money. j.p. morgan chase, they get a break. they are $2.5 trillion in assets. bank america gets a break. $2.3 trillion in assets. wells fargo who can't stay out of trouble, every week there is something new, $1.9 trillion in assets. citibang, 1.9 -- citibank, $1.9 trillion in assets. a bank that's always close to wall street, "the wall street journal" headlined this morning wall street banks get a big win in senate rollback bill. so don't let -- my colleagues, don't let anybody that supports this bill tell you this is all for the community banks. the community banks get some things p in this bill. i'd love to support the community banks and make this a bill about community banks, about credit unions, even about the regional banks like the ones in my state that generally do the right

it comes on the heels of last year's tax giveaway that will benefit the same megabanks. this congress bends over backwards to help wall street working families continue to struggle. wall street is making things worse. it is not just helping wall street with tax breaks, we are helping them with the rollback of legislation. let me explain what that means. in a series over several months i'm laying out the case for how wall street undermines american workers and in making work in america pay off. you remember one of the points i made was that american airlines announced that they were going to give -- to increase did increase workers wages, as did chipotle, and wall street basically hit them with a lower stock price as a result. in each installment of this series, we will -- we've talked about these issues. i want to talk specifically this time about what wall street workers does to employment. it is posted on my medium page. you can follow along, medium.com/senatorbrown. wall street's executives focus on padding their pockets is bad enough, but it comes at the expense of a

that there is a difference between a community bank or a credit union in a small community and a megabank on wall street that is doing its business globally. and we need to have our regulatory system tailored so that the risk -- the risk posed by a particular financial institution is taken into consideration in the regulations applied. that's what this legislation seeks to accomplish. and like i said at the outset, i'm very glad that we have had broad support for this. now, i'd like to take a minute and go over some of the specific provisions in the bill. the economic growth, regulatory relief, and consumer protection act is aimed at right-sizing regulation for financial institutions, including community banks and credit unions, making it easier for consumers to get mortgages and to obtain credit. as i have often said, the real victims of what i am talking about are not really the community banks and the credit unions, but the people, the small businesses, those who need to have access to credit and need to have the ability to get a loan to purchase a house or to start a small business or

finally, our bill will not gut oversight of foreign merchant megabanks operating in the united states, such as bark -- barclays and deutsche bank. these three institutions which have over $150 billion in assets, will be subject to 165 of dodd-frank. that means that foreign banks will still be subject to foreign banks stress test requirements, liquidity stress testing and basel iii requirements. it subjects foreign banks u.s. operations to requirements similar to those imposed on u.s. banks. chairman paul, again, in the march senate banking committee hearing was asked about this, and he said he did not believe that this bill would exempt foreign banks from tough oversight under dodd-frank. additionally, the substitute amendment for this bill has affirmed that large foreign banks do not escape dodd-frank supervision. i think it's really important that we debate the actual merits of this bill and not the bogeyman merits, the statements that this bill will somehow lead to catastrophic downfall of our financial system. as i said, even barney frank disagrees with that evaluation of this bil

with the repeal of glass-steagall, too big to fail megabanks were born. citibank became citigroup, j.p. morgan became j.p. morgan chase. the banks got bigger and bigger and bigger, but the lobbyists, they weren't done yet. over the next decade they tried over and over to expand the loopholes they had punched until the regulators and regulations gave way. by the middle of the decade, the conditions were right, markets broke records, the unemployment rate was below 5%. it was time for the lobbyists to go after it again. hand-tailored suits swarmed capitol hill. meetings were scheduled, and so were fundraisers. their efforts occasionally spilled out in the public hearing rooms and the pitch might sound familiar. in 2006, the head of risk at citigroup told the house financial services committee, quote, the u.s. needs to modernize its capital regulations and there are a variety of new approaches that all represent a significant improvement over the current system. in other words, the regulations are outdated. steve bartlett, a former congressman, who was a lob

second, this bill opens the door to weaker oversight of foreign megabanks operating in the u.s. the same banks that repeatedly violated u.s. law. these are banks like deutsche bank in germany, the trump business organization's personal bank, santander in spain, barkley's in britain, credit suisse and u.b.s. in switzerland. these are banks that repossessed cars from american service men and women who were serving overseas. these were banks that were fined by the federal government. we are doing these foreign banks a favor in this bill. third, with a change of just one word, this bill forces the fed to weaken the rules, even for the largest banks with more than $250 billion in assets. former cftc chair gary ginsler wrote to the senate this month, said this change may subject the government to additional lobbying and possible litigation from individual banks seeking specialty tailored rules. we know, mr. president, that all of these regulators put in place by the trump administration, most of them with ties to wall street, and we know the white house now looks like an executive ret