On the recordMay 6, 2010
I rise in opposition to both the second-degree amendment and the initial Brown-Kaufman amendment. I understand their goals. I believe the chairman's bill addresses those goals. We have 10 percent total liabilities in the United States in the existing bill right now. We only have 4 of the largest 50 banks in the world that are American domiciled. I believe this arbitrary asset cap size is not the appropriate restriction. The real question should be the level of interconnectedness and the risk taking. We saw in the crisis of 2008 the character of the firms was not simply the largest firms but firms that did undue risk taking. We have put forward in this legislation two very important ways so that if these firms do take undue risk or if their size is a contributing factor, the Dodd bill does provide the ability for these banks to be broken up, one through the funeral plans, to make sure these large institutions have to show how they can do an orderly unwinding process through bankruptcy. If they can't show that, whether it is due to the international holdings or the domestic holdings, the systemic risk council can break up these institutions. In addition, there are other parts of the bill that also allow it. If these institutions continue to pose a systemic risk, they can be broken up, so I rise in opposition to both amendments.
