This morning on Capitol Hill Bank regulators are testifying on climaterelated Financial Risks and Monetary Policy. They are appearing before the House Financial Services subcommittee. We will have live coverage here on cspan2 when that hearing gets underway. [inaudible conversations] the committee will come to order. Without objection of the chairs authorized to declare a recess at any time. This hearing is entitled climate risk are financial regulators politically independent . Without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extremist materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. I now recognize myself for four minutes to give an Opening Statement. Federal regulators represented here today have coordinated to promulgate principles for managing climaterelated Financial Risks. The guidance and information requested by the regulators aligned with a 2021 executive order, efforts promoted by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Chair yellow
This hearing is just under four hours. I spent. [background noises] the committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a racist of the committee at any time by this hearing is entitled semi annual report of the bureau of financial protection. Without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair or inclusion in the record. I now recognize myself for four minutes to give an Opening Statement. Thank you director for being here today. As the director you wear a lot of hats. You are a member of the federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Financial Stability oversight consult. This committee spent a lot of time understanding how regulators reacted to the failures of Silicon Valley macon signature bank. Given both the fcic have equal rolls in the failures i am looking forward to hear about your involvement in the decisionmaking process. As we said the fdics chair grunberg and pfister ba
Decision in this case is the first time in a court in our nations history has hel that congress violated the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. This court should uphold the cfpbs funding statute because it is firmly grounded in constitutional text and in historical practice dating back to the founding. The text of the constitution shows that when the framers one to limit Congress Appropriations authority they did so expressly. While the framers restricted appropriationsor the army to two years, they applied no similar limits on appropriations for any other agency. History confirms that. Since the Founding Congress has consistently fundedgencies through standing appropriations that are not timelimited and that provide significant discretion over how much t spend. The First Congress did exactly this at the very first agency it create t customserce, and the same isru for of the founding era agencsncluding the post office, the national mint, the patent office, r
A Public Service along with these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. The suprem court heard oral argunt on whether the consumer fincial Protection Bureaus ndg structure is unconstitutional. The case stems from thegencys payday lending role, the sixth rcuit court of appeals previously ruled against it prompting the federal government to appeal e decision to the supreme cot. The justices have through june 2024 to issue a ruling. We will hear argument this morning in case 22 448, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau versus the Community Financial services association. Mr. Cef justice and may it please the courtthe Circuit Decision in this case is the firs tim any court in our nations historyas held that congress vioted the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. Roviding funding. This court shouldphold the cfpbs funding statute because it is firmly gunded in constitutional text andn historical practice datin back to the founding. T
Neutral act we believe this now to a supreme courtra arguments on whether the Consumer Financial protection bureaus funding structure is unconstitutional. Live coverage on cspan2. Decision in this case is the first time in a court in our nations history has held that congress violated the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. This court should uphold the cfpbs fding statute because it is firmly groundedn constitutional text and in historical practice dating bac to the founding. The text of the constitution shows that when the framers one to limit Congress Appropriations authority they did so expressly. While the framers restricted appropriations for the army to two years, they applied no similar limits on appropriations for any other agency. History confirms that. Since the foundingongress has consistently funded agencies through standg appropriations that are not timelimited and that provide significant discretion over how much to spend. Their congress did exa