Chairman for having this hearing, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Mr. Lardo of California is now recognised for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses for your statements. I, uh, appreciate my colleague Congressman Williams’ frustration with the subcommittee’s focus on a historic analysis of regulation. I may agree with many of the assertions made, which in some cases may have been overreached. However, it’s important to remember that this administration is no longer in office.
I’d much rather Focus, uh on a forward-looking, uh approach of what we can do to make things better, uh and I think debanking and access to banking services is a serious concern, uh and I hope that Mr. Chairman, all of us, uh will agree that we need a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, uh to ensure, uh that access to banking services is widely available, uh in addition to addressing concerns about banking regulators and its impact on debanking, uh we’ve got about 5.
6 million low-income households that critically need access to banking services aren’t getting them, so I hope we can be more forward-looking going forward. On that note, I’d like to consider the larger questions that Mr. Campbell raised about banking regulation generally. I thought those were interesting, and I want to pose them to Ms. Forgive me. Alik, thank you, uh, thank you for your patience. My pronunciation, um, I know you’ve raised obvious concerns about, uh, regulation of banks in the context of a digital asset that may have
For example, high volatility, uh, Mr. Campbell recommends, though, as we’re thinking about banking regulation generally, that, uh, regulators, uh, going forward, uh, approach regulation in a way that is—and I’m going to summarise here—not perfectly, but first that the regulation be written, not oral, uh, that it be public, not secret, uh, that it be explanatory of a rationale used to reach the regulation be written not oral uh that’ be public not secret uh that be explanatory of a rationale used to reach the decision and there’ be some for a lack of better terms, subject to appeal by a third entity and I’m just curious about how your view of banking
Does regulation make sense as we consider ways to improve going forward? Thank you for your enquiry. Congressman, um I actually agree with a lot of those suggestions. Um, I think we need to start with the perspective that regulators must take a risk-based approach to this issue, um and regardless of the industry, crypto or otherwise, um lawmakers must look at what risk that’s presenting to an individual bank or to the banking system in general, looking through the lens of financial stability with regard to the solutions and a way
I will go into further detail about this in my written testimony. I think that will set a level playing field for everyone involved, and secondly, there will be more disclosure requirements for banks. I believe this will not only enhance clarity, but it will also guarantee that any customer, regardless of whether they are a crypto customer or a member of a minority group, attempting to access banking services, will comprehend the reasons behind the restrictions.
Thank you.
Congressman I think the FDIC’s announcement was a positive step, but I don’t think it goes far enough. The fact of the matter is that in response to the inspector general’s report, the FDIC committed to conducting risk assessments of the crypto activities that the banks wish to engage in, and to date, we have no indication whatsoever that they did any assessment of the risk that they claim was so significant that they couldn’t even allow the banks to participate in those activities at all.
I would point out that the FDIC in response to our requests, abused the confidential supervisory information designation to redact page after page of materials in ways that were rejected by a federal court that needs to be addressed. Finally, in response to an order from a federal district court to produce these pause letters that we are referencing, the FDIC misrepresented that its productions were complete so I do think there’s work that needs to be done in order to restore public trust in the FDIC but at a minimum, I do think
The announcement made by the FDIC acting chair yesterday was constructive. Thank you, Mr. Chair.