BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, this is an example of the Republican majority's taste for legislative exotica.
We have a very strange bill that no one expects to go anywhere. They do expect to make some people happy by pretending that they're going to be making oil here. This is in lieu of real legislation.
This is the group that could not have this House pass a transportation bill. The House passed the transportation bill by a legislative maneuver of the kind they used to denounce. It was made part of an overall omnibus package. There was never any chance to amend it, and it came out of a conference committee.
This is a group that can't pass an agriculture bill. We face problems in the agricultural area; and because they are so split over what to do, that committee's brought out a bill, and it's not coming forward. They are unable to do the regular legislative business, so we get this.
Now, what this says is that no rules that have been promulgated of any significance are going to be going forward.
I will not debate the gentleman from Oklahoma about haze. I am no expert about it. But that's the problem. This is not a bill that deals with rules in one area and one area of expertise. It does everything. So let me talk about one area I am familiar with.
The gentleman from Oklahoma says we're saying that you need a Federal regulator looking over the shoulders of every American. No, not every American; but I'm close to thinking of every American who runs a large financial institution, yeah. Of the people who lied about Libor, of the people at Capitol One who cheated consumers.
Now, I am glad we have a consumer bureau that stepped in to protect the Americans there. It's not every American who's corrupt; it is too many in the financial area.
We passed financial reform. I know some of the Republicans don't like it. I read in the paper today, well, Mr. Romney says he's going to repeal it, but the House Republicans say, oh, no, we can't. So instead of repealing it in a head-on way or amending it in a head-on way, they want to stop the rules.
What this bill would do, if it ever became law, would be to say ``no'' to the Volcker rule. No, let's not differentiate as to what kind of activities are legitimate for a bank to do or not. If an American bank that's got deposit insurance wants to speculate and lose billions of dollars in derivative trades, let them be.
This bill will stop us in a number of other areas with regard to derivatives, speculation where we want to put limits on what the nonusers of oil can buy so we can drive up the price.
The notion that the American people are crying out for an end to regulation is not congruent with anything I have read or heard about the financial area. And I am on the Financial Services Committee. I've worked on that.
This bill would fully apply here. It would prevent us from going forward with any of the pending rules in the financial reform bill.
Now, they've taken awhile. They're complicated. Many of them are done. Most of them will be done soon. This is an effort to re-deregulate derivatives, re-deregulate financial irresponsibility without standing up and saying so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
This is an effort to do re-deregulation by stealth. If they don't want to regulate derivatives, if they think speculation's a good thing, then let's bring up a bill. After all, this isn't the agriculture bill. You don't have to be afraid of splitting your membership by trying to do it.
This ought to be straightforward. Instead, they want to do it by stealth. They want to end our effort to bring regulation to the financial industry.
And, yes, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, when it comes to the people who have been running the large financial institutions, we do need more regulation, not less; and I believe the American people understand that and do not want to see the people who brought this terrible recession of 2008 from that financial irresponsibility set free of any restraint.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT