[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 186 (Friday, December 11, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 9, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration of the bill (H.R. 4173) to 
     provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers 
     and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance 
     issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market, 
     and for other purposes:

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, I rise to express my concerns over the 
legislation before us. H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, takes steps to address many of the problems that 
created our current financial crisis. However, I am alarmed at a number 
of provisions that weaken the bill.
  The creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is long 
overdue. Consumers need a strong advocate to protect them from the many 
questionable and confusing financial products offered. However, 
provisions put in by the banking industry to preempt meaningful state 
regulation threaten the strong consumer protections we are fighting 
for. Federal rules promulgated by this agency should set a floor of 
protection, not a ceiling.
  Title III, pertaining to regulation of derivatives, could have been 
improved by amendments offered that banned certain abusive derivatives 
from being traded and offered better transparency to the swap market. 
Unfortunately, those commonsense amendments were defeated. Other 
amendments that created more loopholes in the derivatives markets were 
unfortunately included.
  I was also disappointed that several amendments I cosponsored were 
denied an up or down vote. The Inslee/DeFazio/Hinchey ``Too Big to 
Fail'' amendment set a cap on the size of bank liabilities for 
financial institutions. Instead of relying on regulators to protect us 
from financial firms laden with risky investments, this amendment 
simply breaks up companies with excessive liabilities. The Hinchey/
Inslee/Conyers/DeFazio/Tierney amendment would restore key protections 
from the Glass Steagall Act including the separation of commercial and 
investment banking.
  Furthermore, I opposed the Republican Motion to Recommit because it 
struck all financial reform from the bill, and would have ended the 
TARP program at the most inopportune time. I have long opposed the TARP 
program because it bailed out Wall Street for excessive risk taking at 
taxpayer expense. Now that Wall Street has been bailed out, the major 
problem facing Americans is rising unemployment. We should redirect the 
remaining TARP funds to real job creation on infrastructure because 
that will get people back to work quickly, rebuild critical 
infrastructure, and these jobs cannot be exported overseas. Wall Street 
got its bailout, now it's time to jumpstart American job creation.
  I was a strong opponent of financial deregulation legislation in the 
1990s. This undermined our financial regulators and gave Wall Street 
the opportunity to make the risky speculative bets that it lost big on. 
Reversing this trend is essential; therefore I plan to vote in favor of 
this legislation to move the process forward. I am eager to see what 
emerges from the Senate as they continue their debate on financial 
reform. I am hopeful that this legislation moves us back to responsible 
regulatory oversight. It is important that we rein in the cowboy 
capitalism that has too long prevailed in our financial markets.

                          ____________________