MSNBC "All in with Chris Hayes" - Transcript: Financial Regulations
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: If their bets failed, these more dangerous banks, are more likely to crumble and more likely to bring the rest of the economy with them. This is madness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren took to the floor today to express outrage over a bill that Republicans are soon expected to pass with the help of some Senate Democrats.
The bill would roll back many of the Wall Street reforms passed a decade ago following a financial crisis. And Senator Elizabeth Warren joins me now.
Why is -- how does this get 67 votes? I mean, you haven`t actually voted on it so far. But
WARREN: I`m sorry, let me just stop you right there, how does this get any votes? Any votes? We are now -- next week will be the 10th year anniversary of when Lehmann Brothers crashed and signaled to the entire world that the collapse of 2008 had started. And how it could be that after we got some Dodd-Frank protections in place, after we got 10 years, nearly, of trying to rebuild, after the banks are more profitable than they have ever been in history, how could it be that this congress is saying, I know what let`s do, let`s make it easier for big banks to cheat American families. Let`s make it easier for them to load up on risks. Let`s take 25 of the 40 largest banks in America, banks that sucked down $50 billion in bailout money, and nobody went to jail, let`s take them off the watch list and treat them like itty, tiny, little community banks out somewhere nowhere where they can`t hurt the economy.
HAYES: OK, so here`s -- I want to bear down on this for a little bit. The idea, right, is that the criticism of Dodd-Frank was that it partly was responsible for increasing consolidation in the banking finance sector, that smaller banks were having a hard time dealing with it. And so the origin of this legislation, as I understand it, was to make some adjustment so it would be better for small banks. And then -- well, is that right, I guess. Let me start there and then come on the next question.
WARREN: So, look, we started in three years ago. And all the Democrats got together on the banking committee and said what can we do to reduce regulations for small banks? And we sat down, a lot of people put things on the table, and agreed as a group. We could go for all of these. We show them to the Republicans. And they say not unless you agree to reduce the regulations on the giant banks.
HAYES: right.
WARREN: And we said no, we`re not going to do that. We`ll only do it for the community banks. And the community banks have been held as the human shields.
And so finally what happened is the Republicans got their way, and they are moving forward on a bill that has some help for the community banks and has a lot of help for really big banks.
HAYES: So, that`s your -- is that your understanding -- I mean, there are people that I imagine you feel like you agree with on a lot of things, someone like Tim Kaine, for instance, that voted for this in the first procedural vote. Is that the understanding of the judgment they`re making here, that in the general mix here, at least we`re getting some of this.
WARREN: Look, it is the only talking point that I have heard from the other side, because nobody can explain why they`re saying that banks that are up to a quarter of a trillion dollars should be regulated as if they`re community banks. Also, nobody can explain why this bill has provisions in it to hurt consumers. And let me mention just one.
HAYES: Sure.
WARREN: You know, we collect data now. We learned some lessons from the crash. And one of the lessons we learned is that there are a fair number of financial institutions that just outright discriminate. They charge African-Americans more than they charge whites. They charge Latinos more than they charge whites. There`s a question about women being able to get access to credit. So we said we`re going to have to collect some data and get some data about what`s going on. And by the way, much of this data the banks already collect. It`s that we want reported so that you can keep track of what`s happening.
And one of the things that`s in this bill says you know, a whole bunch of banks, about 85 percent of banks are actually not going to have to report that data. Now I want to be fair here, the amount of data that it will be reduced, because these are mostly small banks that won`t be reporting, will only be maybe 10 percent or a little more. But here`s the problem, there will be whole areas where there will be no data at all.
HAYES: Right.
WARREN: No data at all. And if there`s no data, then there`s no way to know if these financial institutions are discriminating against people. We need that data to keep the banks honest. And why do we need the data to keep the banks honest? Because time after time over the past 10 years when we did have the data, we uncovered the fact that there were banks that were discriminating, and we were able to bring charges against those banks and get them to change those practices, and to make it all public.
You know, there`s no data, there`s no way to do that. And that`s the kind of thing that`s just buried in here.
There`s another piece that`s buried in here. After the crash in 2008, we decided, OK, look, when we built Dodd-Frank and built consumer agency, there are certain ways you`re not going to be able to cheat people on home mortgages anymore, crazy teaser rates and so on and so forth, stuff hidden in the fine print. And that applies to people who buy bricks and mortar homes, people who buy condos, and people who buy manufactured housing, trailers.
What this bill says is, OK, we`ll still apply it to bricks and mortar houses and condos, but, you know, people who are living in manufactured housing, let`s just make it open season on them.
HAYES: Wait, really?
WARREN: Yeah, really.
HAYES: No, there`s actually a carve out for manufactured housing for mortgage practices?
WARREN: Yeah.
Think about that, this is just a bill that was written by the lobbyists to help their clients, and not to help the American people, not to help community bankers. This is a bill that was written, that`s why it`s called the lobbyists bill, you know, the bank lobbyists bill, because the bank lobbyists said when Dodd-Frank passed -- you know, a lot of people said, OK, we beat back the bank lobbyists, the chief bank lobbyist, on the day that Dodd-Frank passed, said it`s only halftime. And what he meant is we`re coming back and coming back and coming back until we roll back these regulations.
HAYES: I want to ask you about something you just donated, since I have you here -- you just actually $5,000 to every state Democratic Party for a total of $250,000. People are interpreting that as a big move, perhaps, on the way to running for president, is that a correct interpretation?
WARREN: No, I am not running for president. I`m running for senate in Massachusetts, 2018.
HAYES: I asked if that was a correct interpretation as a first move towards that.
WARREN: No. Let me tell you what it is a move toward. I believe that we need to build the infrastructure in the Democratic Party in every single state in this country. And that means they need resources right now to be able to reach out, to be able to get voters registered, to be able to do their grassroots organizing.
And I want to help them in any way I can. You know, the other part I talked about at this same speech you`re talking about is the importance of having a Democratic Party that stands for something, a Democratic Party that isn`t just willing to take on a fight when it comes to it, a Democratic Party that picks fights, a Democratic Party that makes people across this country say I want to get out there and vote. That`s what I want to see.
HAYES: Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you or your time tonight. That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now with Ari Melber in for Rachel Maddow.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source