Back to General Resources

House Committee on Financial Services: Full Committee Markup 4.17.24

House Committee on Financial Services

Full Committee Markup

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Topline

  • The House Financial Services Committee marked up and reported seven bills and six CRA resolutions. The measures were intended to promote innovation in financial services and to nullify regulatory actions taken by the Biden Administration.
  • All measures passed on party-line votes, except for the Bank Safety Act of 2023 and the Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act, which were unanimously approved.

Legislation

  • H.R. 4116, the “Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act”
  • H.J. Res. 127, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the ‘Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors'”
  • H.J. Res. 122, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to ‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)'”
  • H.J. Res. 120, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) relating to “Guidance on Non-Bank Financial Company Determinations'”
  • H.J. Res. 125, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System relating to ‘Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions'”
  • H.J. Res. 126, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation relating to ‘Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions'”
  • H.J. Res. 124, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to ‘Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions'”

Opening Statements

Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.)

In his opening statement, McHenry discussed his legislation, the Financial Services Innovation Act, explaining that it would allow entrepreneurs to test new products and services without violating consumer protection laws. He emphasized the need to ensure that federal financial regulators are keeping pace with the evolving technological landscape. McHenry said that as sky-high prices continue to hammer family budgets, the Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act would prevent the Biden Administration from applying inappropriate regulations. He noted the Committee planned to advance six resolutions to combat gross overreach by President Biden’s regulators using the Congressional Review Act.

McHenry discussed H.J. Res. 127, which would overturn the SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rule. He described the SEC’s rule as fatally flawed, and said it exceeds the agency’s authority, threatens the economy, and would overwhelm investors with non-financial information. He said the Committee also planned to advance H.J. Res. 122, to protect America’s access to affordable credit by blocking the CFPB’s Credit Card Late Fee Rule, which McHenry said harms consumers by shifting costs to consumers who pay their bills on time. He concluded by discussing the three CRA resolutions led by Reps. Fitzgerald, Houchin, and Donalds, which would overturn rules from the Fed, FDIC, and OCC.

Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)

In her opening statement, Waters noted that most of the bills being considered were not bipartisan and would pose significant harm to the nation’s consumers and investors. She warned that the CRAs would overturn important investor and environmental protection rules. Waters criticized Committee Republicans for teaming up with big banks to block rules that would protect consumers from junk fees, which cost consumers $10 billion annually. She also blasted Republicans for moving forward with a bill that would remove basic safeguards for consumers using earned wage access products. Waters said the bills being considered would provide the industry with exactly what they want, a weaker regulatory framework that will push consumers into a dangerous cycle of debt. She criticized the “so-called Financial Services Innovation Act” for creating sandboxes where financial firms can break federal laws in the name of innovation. She concluded by urging the Committee to consider her bills, the Housing Crisis Response Act, the Ending Homelessness Act, and the Down Payment Towards Equity Act.

Consideration of Legislation

H.R. 5535, the Insurance Data Protection Act

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisc.) noted the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) has become more aggressive in collecting data from insurance companies. He explained that he introduced the Insurance Data Protection Act to prescribe the collection of data by an insurance company. Fitzgerald said his bill also declares that the sharing of any other public data by the FIO does not impact any federal or state confidentiality arising under federal or state law.

Waters spoke in opposition to the bill and said that it would restrict the federal government’s ability to properly monitor financial or systemic risk in the insurance industry. She noted skyrocketing insurance costs are putting financial strain on both consumers and communities, and described Fitzgerald’s legislation as a regressive step that undermines one of the federal government’s only tools to monitor systemic risk in the insurance industry. Waters said now is not the time to weaken the government’s tools to monitor industry trends, citing threats posed by the climate crisis. She concluded that in the event that states or others refuse to work with FIO to collect or provide the necessary data, FIO must have the ability to collect the data it needs to carry out its mandated monitoring duties.

Reps. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) spoke in support of the bill. Davidson warned that FIO is trying to overstep its authorities.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) urged Members to think about the bill in terms of their duty to financial stability. He explained that although insurance is regulated at the state level, the impacts of an insurance failure are not confined within the boundaries of one state. He noted climate change doesn’t care about state boundaries, and warned about a potential situation where we are exposed to a national financial panic, citing the flood of insurers pulling out of Florida. Casten encouraged his colleagues to vote no.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) warned that the bill would eliminate the authority of the FIO to subpoena insurance companies and collect data from the industry. She explained that because the FIO does not regulate the insurance industry, FIO subpoena power can be crucial to the federal government’s ability to monitor potential financial risk, protect consumers, and monitor for illicit activity. Beatty offered an amendment to allow FIO to subpoena insurance information if the Treasury Secretary deems it necessary for national security interests. Waters supported Beatty’s amendment, and explained how insurance can be crucial to stopping illicit activity.

Fitzgerald said Beatty’s amendment was unnecessary, and noted state regulators are perfectly capable of working with the FIO when the insurance office is willing to work collaboratively on a security issue.

The Beatty Amendment was not adopted (21-28).

The Fitzgerald Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 5535, as amended, was reported favorably to the House. (28-22)

H.R. 802, the Respect State Housing Laws Act

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) noted that during the pandemic, Congress was concerned that a rapid rise in delinquent rent payments would lead to rapid displacement. He explained that Congress responded by passing Section 4024 of the CARES Act to impose a nationwide moratorium on evictions. Loudermilk said that while Section 4024-B expired, 4024-C did not. He noted the provision was crafted to protect tenants from eviction during the pandemic but was also never intended to become permanent. Loudermilk explained that H.R. 802 would strike 4024C, eliminating any ambiguity in the law that exists today.

Waters said she strongly opposed Loudermilk’s bill because it would worsen the nation’s homelessness crisis by increasing evictions. She criticized Republicans for trying to take crucial protection away from people who lost their jobs either from the pandemic or because their employers are downsizing.

Waters warned that Loudermilk’s bill would undermine the progress made in tackling the housing crisis.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) said 30-day eviction notices help reduce evictions and promote housing stability by providing renters with information. She noted her opposition to the bill, describing it as ill-conceived legislation.

Waters introduced an amendment to strike the text of the bill and reaffirm the eviction notice requirement included in the CARES Act. She asked Republicans to have good faith and compassion by providing people with a 30-day notice. McHenry opposed her amendment, and said it was important to clean up the provisions of the CARES Act that were intended to be temporary.

The Waters Amendment was not adopted. (21-29)

The Loudermilk Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 802, as amended, was reported favorably to the House. (29-21)

H.R. 7437, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision (FUTURES) Act

Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) explained that regulators are often too slow to recognize and address problems, and said her bill would require the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, CFBP, and NCUA to conduct assessments of their supervisory technologies and procurement practices and report their progress to Congress. She said her FUTURES Act aims to enhance regulatory effectiveness and reduce burdens on financial institutions and consumers alike. Houchin concluded that the FUTURES Act provides a framework for a constructive dialogue between regulators and Congress.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) thanked Houchin for her leadership on the FUTURES Act and emphasized that financial institutions and regulators must be ready to respond to new emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence, which can supercharge cybersecurity risks, contagion, and fraud.

Waters described Houchin’s bill as a step in the right direction by allowing Congress to gain an understanding of the technological vulnerabilities our banking regulators may face. Waters noted she sponsored an amendment, explaining the bill missed opportunities to gain data points in diversity and inclusion efforts. She explained that her amendment would allow Congress to gain data on specific recruiting practices at the agencies and ensure that federal banking agencies conduct a full risk assessment through the integration of new technologies, especially through third-party vendors. Beatty spoke in support of the amendment.

Houchin noted the goal of the FUTURES Act is to better understand regulators’ strengths and vulnerabilities as they relate to their real-time supervisory capabilities, and said she was concerned that Waters’ amendment unnecessarily expands the scope of the legislation. She urged her colleagues to reject the Waters’ amendment.

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) said he didn’t support Waters’ amendment as drafted but did support the underlying bill. He warned that while the winds of innovation are sweeping through the financial system, our regulatory capabilities are remaining static.

McHenry said Waters’ amendment had nothing to do with the bill and urged Members to support the bill and reject the amendment.

The Waters Amendment was not adopted. (22-28)

The Houchin Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 7437, as amended, was reported favorably to the house by voice vote.

H.R. 7440, the Financial Services Innovation Act of 2024

McHenry described his legislation as a commonsense bill that paves the way for entrepreneurs to do regulatory beta testing before bringing their products to market. He said his bill would provide entrepreneurs with regulatory clarity and allow more choices for consumers. McHenry noted the bill would establish the Financial Services Innovation Office within the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, HUD, Treasury, NCUA, CFPB, FHFA, and SEC. He emphasized that Congress must offer entrepreneurs a clear path forward to regulation and bring their products to market faster and more efficiently. McHenry said the bill’s beta testing approach would enhance consumer protections and concluded that the bill represents a commitment to creating a financial system that is dynamic, responsive, and inclusive for all consumers.

Waters spoke in opposition to the bill and said it not only throws responsibility out the door but would open the door for fraud. She warned that McHenry’s bill would create wholesale exemptions from consumer protection laws so that companies can experiment on consumers without repercussions.

Waters criticized the bill for setting agencies up to fail by not giving them enough time, information, or funding to properly implement the requirement. She noted the bill was overly broad, which would cause agencies to be overwhelmed with new applications, as any company can submit unlimited applications. Waters urged Members who care about responsible innovation to oppose the bill.

Hill said the bill’s work to stand up innovation in the agencies and encourage them to work with market participants is the right way to enhance supervision. He cited the benefits from the designation of sandbox innovation officers at the SEC during the Trump Administration. Hill criticized the Biden Administration for standing in the way of innovation, and lauded McHenry’s bill for facilitating a financial regulatory environment that encourages innovation. The AI working group found that regulators are considering artificial intelligence in how to supervise in their agencies. This bill will unify this process through a single liaison.

Velazquez warned that McHenry’s bill’s approach would undermine the consumer protection framework by opening the door to exempting all new products and services from statute and regulation. She described the bill as highly prescriptive and potentially burdensome for agencies, explaining that it creates a binding, open-ended right for the company to ask any agency to enter into a compliance agreement. She concluded that the bill would undermine an agency’s entire statutory and regulatory framework and encouraged her colleagues to vote no.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) described McHenry’s legislation as one of the worst bills he’d ever seen.

He said the bill maintained that if someone can put together a petition for a project, they would be immune from federal compliance regulations once it’s approved. Lynch described the legislation’s provisions as unconstitutional. He blasted the bill for shutting down people’s civil rights, property rights, and the right to a day in court by forcing arbitration if there is a dispute. He concluded that the bill disregards American’s rights. Lynch offered an amendment that relates to enforcement actions by non-party agencies, explaining that in its current form, the bill would prevent any regulatory agency that is not a party to a compliance agreement from attempting to enforce a consumer protection law or a privacy law.

Waters noted that Lynch’s amendment would ensure that all agencies, including federal and state authorities, would continue to have full enforcement powers. She also noted that the amendment would ensure that federal and state agencies are able to initiate enforcement actions in instances where agencies share jurisdictions. Waters urged her colleagues to support Lynch’s amendment.

McHenry opposed Lynch’s amendment, explaining that it would gut the underlying bill. McHenry warned that the U.S. is woefully behind on innovation, citing the lack of definitions for stablecoins and artificial intelligence.

Lynch introduced another amendment, which would prevent an agency from approving a petition from a financial innovation that uses an artificial intelligence-powered tool that is not easily explainable and could impact a protected class. He noted that while there is remarkable potential for AI to reduce institutional costs in the financial sector, there is also a risk to consumer protection and the safety of our financial sector. Lynch warned that the data points used for machine learning could impact a protected class, and noted this risk is pronounced where third-party AI vendors are involved. He explained how his amendment would ensure that agencies are not waiving their regulatory authorities on AI-powered tools.

Waters supported Lynch’s amendment and explained that it would ensure that unexplainable black box artificial intelligence or machine learning innovations are not approved under the bill’s light touch innovations. She noted the amendment is consistent with the CFPB’s work to ensure that when lenders use AI and deny someone credit, they provide explicit reasons for the denial.

McHenry opposed the amendment and said it would ban the use of data in the underlying bill. He warned that machine learning models and algorithmic input data machine learning models would be banned under Lynch’s amendment and urged Members to oppose the amendment.

Lynch disagreed with McHenry and explained that his amendment would only require the data to be readily explainable. He reiterated that AI can have a biased result, and developers often can’t explain how that result was achieved.

Beatty warned that McHenry’s bill would create a path for companies to evade longstanding safeguards that prevent abusive practices in financial marketplaces. She criticized the bill for limiting the ability of federal and state agencies to bring enforcement actions once a petition is approved. Beatty described the legislation’s definition of financial innovation as extremely broad and offered an amendment to strike the legislation and replace it with text to direct agencies to prepare an assessment for funding requirements, quantity of staff, and estimated resources needed to create an FSIO. She explained that the assessment must describe how a limitation on enforcement action could pose risks to the safety and soundness of the financial system.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) supported Beatty’s amendment and said the government should not be picking winners and losers. McHenry opposed Beatty’s amendment, explaining that it would render the underlying text of the bill moot.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) offered an amendment to avoid any ambiguity on money laundering being bad.

He noted the current draft of the bill requires petitioners to certify that their products meet the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Agreement, and said his amendment adds a certification that the petitioner’s product does not pose a national security risk to the United States. McHenry supported Casten’s amendment.

The Casten Amendment was adopted by voice vote.

The Lynch Amendment was not adopted. (22-28)

The second Lynch Amendment was not adopted. (22-28)

The Beatty Amendment was not adopted. (22-28)

The McHenry Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 7440, as amended, was reported favorably to the House. (28-22)

H.R. 7248, the Earned Wage Access Consumer Protection Act

Rep. Bryan Steil explained that his Earned Wage Access Consumer Protections Act provides clear and consistent consumer protection for users of Earned Wage Access services (EWA). He said the growth in EWA must match consumer protections, and EWA providers need to know what kinds of activities are permissible and prohibited. Steil noted his bill lists clear disclosure requirements for EWA providers and clarifies that EWA advances are non-recourse.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) opposed Steil’s legislation and said it would allow predatory pay-day loans to proliferate. Green discussed the proliferation of nefarious versions of EWA products where workers are charged fees by third-party companies. He warned that Steil’s bill would exempt all forms of earned wage access products from the Truth in Lending Act.

Velazquez said Congress must ensure that there are proper consumer protections for EWA products.

She called for a clear disclosure of the APR, even for transactions that are only for a few days. Velazquez criticized H.R. 7428 and its supporters for perpetuating the myth that EWAs are not credit. She noted that 190 labor, civil rights, and community groups are opposed to H.R. 7428 and urged her colleagues to reject the bill.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) supported Steil’s bill, which he said establishes dispute policies and clearly informs consumers of their rights. Hill also supported the bill, explaining that it provides clarity and transparency for EWA products.

Sherman said the question is not whether consumers will not have access to a product, but whether it is a payday loan. He noted EWA is about getting paid in advance, which is a payday loan. Lynch also opposed Steil’s bill and said it would essentially exempt EWA technology from federal loan disclosure requirements. Lynch urged the Committee to allow the CFPB the opportunity to finalize its guidance on EWA. Lynch noted the average APR that EWA users were charged was 300%.

Green offered an amendment to strike the implementation of Steil’s bill and direct the CFPB to issue guidance on how consumer protection laws apply to EWA products. Steil said Green’s amendment was ill-advised and abdicates Congress’ role to the CFPB.

Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) noted his support for Steil’s legislation and criticized the CFPB for eliminating access to EWA products.

The Green Amendment was not adopted. (22-28)

The Steil Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 7428, as amended, was reported favorably to the House. (28-22)

H.R. 4206, the Bank Safety Act of 2023

Sherman explained his bill is consistent with certain provisions in the Basel III proposal. He said his legislation simply requires banks with over $100 billion in capital and securities available for sale to market the real value of those securities. Sherman noted he worked with industry on the proposal, and they asked for a gradual phase-in. He noted that if passed, the bill would become effective on July 1st, 2028. Sherman also noted that the Federal Reserve of New York found that banks are more likely to hedge their securities and buy insurance when the securities decline. 

Barr described the bill as responsive to the events of March 2023, unlike the Basel III Endgame which seeks to put capital requirements on an already well-capitalized banking system.

McHenry commended Sherman for his work on the bill.

The Sherman Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 4206, as amended, was reported favorably to the House by voice vote.

H.R. 4116, the Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act

Green explained that he developed the Act in response to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. He noted that before 2023, the Systemic Risk Exception was invoked on 5 occasions, all occurring between September 2008 and March 2009 to prevent further panic in the financial system. Green said H.R 4116, would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to put forward a post-failure report for a bank within 60 days for any use of the System Risk Assessment.

Waters spoke in support of the bill, and said it would ensure rapid and transparent reporting from the GAO in the aftermath of future bank failures. She said she was pleased that the Republicans worked with Democrats to advance the bill in the markup.

McHenry described Green’s bill as useful and noted the bipartisan agreement on more transparency from regulators.

The Green Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 4116, as amended, was reported favorably to the House (50-0).

H.J. Res. 127, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the ‘Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors'”

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) described the resolution as the accumulation of a 14-month investigation into the SEC’s authority to promulgate a rule on climate disclosure. He noted that in the two years since the Climate Disclosure Rule was proposed, the SEC unleashed an unprecedented assault on capital markets. Huizenga said that in order to appease the radical left, Chair Gensler increased the costs of being a publicly traded company by 21%. He explained how Chair Gensler ignored the warning from the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority by using ambiguity as an explicit authority from Congress. Huizenga concluded that the SEC should not statutorily redefine the materiality standard to prescribe climate-related disclosures for all public companies.

Waters spoke in opposition to the resolution. She said investors have the right to know how the companies they own are responding to the climate crisis. Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) also spoke in opposition to the resolution, and explained that the SEC’s climate rule is about standardizing climate information from public companies so that regular people can have the same information as businesses.

He noted that investors are having a hard time insuring homes because of climate change, and said that

by issuing this rule, the SEC is staying true to its role to oversee capital formation.

Casten also opposed the resolution, and said the SEC’s Climate Rule was issued in response to the needs of investors, and allowed investors to identify and hedge risks.

Hill supported the resolution. Barr described the rule as an 800-page monstrosity that would discourage private companies from going public. He noted the rule’s reporting and litigation costs would diminish return costs for investors.

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) also spoke in support of the resolution. He explained the SEC’s rule strays far outside of the agency’s traditional role and positions the agency as an environmental regulator. Meuser said the only way carbon emissions will be curbed is through innovation in the private sector.

H.J. Res 127 was reported favorably to the House (28-22)

H.J. Res. 122, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to ‘Credit Card Penalty Fees (Regulation Z)'”

Barr urged his colleagues to support the resolution to nullify the CFPB’s “disastrous” Credit Card Late Fee Rule. Barr warned the CFPB’s rule would result in those who pay their bills on time having higher costs and would incentivize people to take on more debt.

Waters said she agreed with the CFPB on the need to lower fees to $8. She said she opposed the resolution, noting that the last time she checked, credit card companies and banks were doing extremely well.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) spoke in support of the resolution and emphasized the need to let the market work.

Sherman noted the CFPB’s rule would only apply to institutions with over $100 billion.

H.J. Res 122 was reported favorably to the House (28-22)

H.J. Res. 120, a resolution “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) relating to “Guidance on Non-Bank Financial Company Determinations'”

Hill discussed his disappointment with FSOC’s new non-bank Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI) guidance. He criticized the Biden Administration for cementing FSOC’s legacy as a political tool and a roving monitor. Hill blasted FSOC for using the non-bank designation guidance to grant political appointees the ability to go after specific companies without the need to justify the designations. He noted Rep. Foster introduced legislation that requires FSOC to only use SIFI guidance as a last resort and urged his colleagues to support the CRA.

Waters expressed her strong opposition to the resolution, which she said would make it impossible to prevent the buildup of risk in financial institutions whose failure would jeopardize the system as a whole.

She noted Secretary Yellen’s leadership has helped ensure that companies like AIG could no longer threaten the economy. Waters said the new guidance makes it clear that SIFI guidance is only one tool for the FSOC.

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) said that if the financial crisis taught her anything, it’s that relying on financial regulators to root out systemic risk will always fail. She cited the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank as the most recent example of regulatory failure. Wagner emphasized that Congress should not be in the business of empowering government bureaucrats to act with little transparency or accountability, and urged her colleagues to support the resolution.

Casten said he opposed the resolution and supported FSOC’s recent ruling. He said Congress should strengthen FSOC’s authority for SIFI.

H.J. Res 120 was reported favorably to the House (28-22)

Consideration of H.J. Res 124, 125, & 126

The final three resolutions were considered together. Fitzgerald noted that ongoing work by the Federal Reserve signals their increased activity on climate policy and credit channeling without authorization from Congress. He warned that future scenario analyses, which could include full-blown climate stress tests with links to capital requirements, could be used to move credit away from sectors of the economy, like fossil fuel production, for political reasons. He urged his colleagues to support the three resolutions.

Waters criticized Republicans for wasting Congress’ time by rescinding every rule and regulation issued by agencies that has anything to do with climate change. She noted that climate change is real, and said climate-related financial risks can’t be ignored. Waters explained that the guidance from the Federal Reserve describes how large banks can address prudential risk areas including credit, liquidity, financial, and other risks involving climate change. She noted that regulators in the United Kingdom included climate change in their stress testing four years ago, and the Bank of England designed its 2021 stress test to include climate-related risk on capital requirements. Waters strongly urged her colleagues to reject the three resolutions.

Houchin said the FDIC’s rule on climate disclosures should have never existed and criticized FDIC Chair Gruenberg for venturing into climate policy. She explained her CRA would nullify the FDIC’s rule and steer the agency back to its mission of ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) explained that H.J. Res. 124 voices disapproval of the OCC’s Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions, which he described as the latest attempt by the Biden Administration to circumvent Congress to enact policy. Donalds warned the rule would increase the cost of business for large institutions, which would then be borne by consumers. He urged his colleagues to protect American markets and return wide-reaching policy debates to Congress by supporting his resolution.

H.J. Res 124, 125, & 126 were reported favorably to the House en bloc. (28-22)

For more information on this meeting, please click here. 

For an archive of past SIFMA hearing coverage, please click here.