Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When I talk about rubber-stamping, oftentimes people don't really know what we are talking about. What I am saying is that we need to have better review. The OCC needs to be able to do everything possible to ensure that they know what these big banks are going to do and whether or not they are going to close down branches, whether or not they are going to lay off people, whether or not people are only going to be able to go to their telephone, to the internet, and somehow try to get someone to talk to. Let me tell you what the definition of rubber-stamping is. In 2023, the OCC approved--you won't believe this--22 of 23 mergers within 60 days. That is 95 percent done in 2 months. Now, that is what you call rubber-stamping. That is what you call the big businesses, big banks being able to do whatever they want to do. All they have to do is get individuals like my friend on the opposite side of the aisle to stand up and support them with what they want to do. Again, I will remind you that when these big mergers take place, they lay off people, and they close down branch banking. That is why we have what we call deserts that exist in communities; deserts because there is no branch banking. The big boys don't really care about branch banking. They are big, and they are doing exactly what I have indicated by making more money by laying off more people, having less services, and charging larger interest rates. I am not on the side of big banks. I am on the side of the people. Let me continue. The Republicans may claim this resolution also prevents the OCC from updating its merger review procedures in the future. Why would they want to do that with just one banking agency? Perhaps they forgot that we have two other Federal banking agencies, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Not only will this resolution freeze the OCC's review procedures in time and arguably prevent them from even providing guidance to applicants on how their review procedures work, but it allows other Federal bank regulators, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, to update their procedures. This would likely lead to regulatory arbitrage, where banks seek to merge with banks within a charter where the primary regulator has the weakest review standards. In fact, we saw this kind of arbitrage in the lead-up to the 2008 global financial crisis when the weakest banks would seek to get a charter from the weakest regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, OTS, until their banks failed and Congress shut down the agency in 2008. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we tend to come to the floor when we are producing legislation, and we talk about a lot of ways that bills have to go through different kinds of discussions, different kinds of meetings, et cetera. Oftentimes, the people don't really understand what we are saying when we talk about things like mergers, and we talk about the OCC and we talk about review and all of that. Let me just try and talk about it in ways that people understand. First of all, I have said and I stand by the fact that with these big bank mergers, they close down branch banking. They close down the banks in the communities. Why do they do that? They do that because they want to save money. Yet, what happens when they close down the bank? Mr. Speaker, in many communities and in my own community, when banks were closed down, all you had was the ATM. You didn't have anybody you could talk to. When people go to the bank and they only have the ATM, what do you do when you want to talk about an automobile loan? What do you do when you want to talk about a mortgage? Who do you talk to? Who answers questions about the credit cards and about things that show up on the credit card that you don't know about? Who do you talk to? Mr. Speaker, I don't know who you talk to. You sure can't ask the ATM about that. The ATM cannot give you the kinds of services that branches give you. The reason branches were there in the first place are when you have these big bank mergers that close down the branch bankers. Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate on an earlier point that I made. We have seen how the largest banks have grown too big to manage through these bank mergers and then repeatedly broke the law and harmed their customers. For example, a few years ago, when I chaired the Committee on Financial Services, we investigated Wells Fargo after they were found to have engaged in a pattern and practice of violating the law. The bank illegally repossessed servicemembers' cars. They failed to submit a credible living will. They overcharged small business retailers for credit card services. They flunked their Community Reinvestment Act exam. They discriminated against people of color who were seeking mortgage loans. To top it off, they pressured their employees to cross-sell their products, which led to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach unrealistic sales goals. Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle would want to challenge me on that because that is why we fined them when we discovered what they had done. Can the Speaker imagine a huge bank like Wells Fargo, too big to manage, having all of this unlawful activity and leading to the creation of millions of fake accounts without customers' permission so that staff could reach these unrealistic sales goals? This is unbelievable, but this is what happened. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that this happened, and they know what we had to do with Wells Fargo. As a matter of fact, it was after all of this revelation about these unlawful activities that we were able to at least help get rid of some board members and the CEO. They all had to go. Yet, this is what happens when you allow big, big banks to keep merging. They are too big to manage, and they give up on customer service that branch banking is all about. I bring that to the Speaker's attention so that I could make my colleagues on the other side of the aisle remember what happened with Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo was originally founded in 1852, and it grew, in part, through several bank mergers, including a 1998 merger with Northwest and an acquisition of Wachovia during the 2008 financial crisis. Wells Fargo became one of the biggest banks and the tenth largest public company in the world based on sales, profits, assets, and market value. Yet, in our investigation, we learned that a senior official at Northwest had an aggressive cross-selling and product sales strategy, and he brought that approach to Wells Fargo. This strategy was adopted and spread throughout the business, including to former Wachovia branches and retail bank operations that Wells Fargo acquired. Wells Fargo's CEO, John Stumpf, was fully aware that Wells Fargo's focus on this cross-selling combined with aggressive sales goals and associated incentive compensation plans could encourage employees' gaming and create compliance problems. The bank was fined again and again until, in 2018, I pushed the bank regulators to use their full toolkit to hold a repeat offender like Wells Fargo accountable. The Federal Reserve, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership that I mentioned earlier about putting a cap on assets, used one of the tools regulators rarely use--and I repeat: Rarely is this used--to impose an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act. What it said basically was: You can't keep doing this and making money. You can't keep doing this and profiting off of the backs of your customers. You can't keep doing this and getting richer and richer, and so she put an asset cap on the bank until the bank cleaned up its act. That cap remains in place 7 years later. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will think of our constituents, including the servicemembers, the seniors, the students, the veterans, and our neighbors that Wells Fargo harmed when deciding if we could make bank mergers easier. If my colleagues do, they will vote ``no'' on this harmful resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we consider whether we should make the approval of bank mergers easier, I have another example of how mergers have led to major problems. In 2020, the Federal Reserve and the OCC fined Citigroup $400 million over serious ongoing deficiencies relating to its risk management systems. Now, this is very, very important. Every bank must have risk management but when they get too huge not only do they not have the proper risk management, it doesn't work very well. It was a longstanding issue that Citi had after they went through a series of mergers in the 1990s. When the 2020 fine of $400 million was imposed, there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that explained how mergers harm the bank. They wrote: ``Regulators have long fretted that the hodgepodge of systems, a legacy of a string of deals in the 1990s that turned Citigroup into a financial powerhouse, could make the bank vulnerable to costly and potentially damaging missteps.'' They were too big to manage. ``A recent high-profile error--Citigroup's accidental $900 million payment to creditors of cosmetics company Revlon, Inc.--gave credence to their concerns.'' That is right. The bank lacked sufficient controls because of its past mergers--too big to manage--and accidentally paid $900 million to Revlon, which quickly went into litigation. The bank did not correct their problems. Regulators fined them again last year, but earlier this year, we learned that Citibank made another big payment error. The bank--I love this one--intended to pay a customer $280 but someone accidentally added way too many zeros to the transaction. For 90 minutes before an employee caught the mistake, one lucky customer had $81 trillion credited to their account. Unfortunately, for that customer, the bank corrected their error and far too often these kinds of mismanagement mistakes actually lead to harm for consumers. In fact, since 2000, Citigroup has paid over--listen to this--$27 billion in fines, settlements, and consumer remediation, including 42 actions related to consumer protection violations. This includes discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants, overcharging other credit card holders, and mortgage servicing violations that could have helped homeowners avoid failure. Again, this is the logical conclusion if we have faster mergers. We will have fewer and fewer banks that are bigger and bigger and, indeed, too big to manage. Let me just say: When I said how much they had been fined just a moment ago, Citigroup, one could think how could they be fined that much money? How can they afford it? Where do you think they got that money from? Where do you think that money came from? Why do you think that doesn't matter to the big banks? It is just a matter of doing business. Do you know where that money comes from? It comes from the customers. That is why we have to make sure that the customers are serviced properly, that when a big merger wants to have support from the government, that they will have been vetted in such a way that OCC understands very well: How are you going to service these customers? Are you going to close down these branch bankers? How are you going to help somebody that is looking for a mortgage? What are you going to do to the person that can't talk to the ATM because they are trying to get a car loan? These are legitimate questions. These are legitimate answers that need to be given. I will say this: The money does not fall out of the sky that allows them to pay millions and millions of dollars in fines. It comes from charging the customers, increasing interest rates, laying off employees so you have less employees to pay, and the services get worse and worse and worse. The customers are the victims of these big mergers who do not want to be reviewed properly and who you support in not wanting to be reviewed properly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am just sitting here being absolutely shocked by some of my own words when I take a look at the fines that we have charged both Citi and Wells Fargo. I see that each of them have paid $27 billion in fines, but they are still in business. Do you know why? It is because they make so much money. This is just the cost of doing business. We break the law. They are going to fine us, but we can afford it. We will go on doing what we do. This is what happened with the big, big banks that you allow to merge without understanding what they are all about and what is their commitment to the consumers. As a matter of fact, they can afford to pay $57 billion in fines, money that they have collected from their customers. They only see this as the cost of doing business, and they keep on doing business, keep on getting fined. What are we talking about? Listen, I am not opposed to credible mergers. Democrats just want mergers that result in a bank that will follow the law and serve the community. We want to make sure that they have the systems in place and the management to follow the law. Why? Because the consumer is on the hook and the taxpayer is on the hook; that is why. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that I have not talked to anybody recently who was happy with their bank. They have problems getting services because the banks keep cutting back on employees and trying to push everybody to the ATM. We can do better than this. We can understand when the mergers want to take place, who these entities are that want to merge, how huge this is going to make this bank, and what they are going to do about branch banking. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to further discuss with our Members and this country the situation that we find ourselves in, the chaotic situation that has so many people confused. It is a chaotic situation that is causing trauma and harm to the people of this country. I know much of what I am going to say today perhaps has been said by others before, but we need to talk about this situation over and over again and daily so that people can understand what is going on and how our democracy is being challenged. Madam Speaker, last year, Trump denied knowing anything about Project 2025, the radical rightwing plan to reshape the Federal Government. Of Project 2025, Trump said: ``I don't know anything about it. I don't want to know anything about it.'' Trump, Elon Musk, and his appointees are now following the Project 2025 playbook. They are recklessly gutting Federal agencies and government's capacity. Elon Musk has said that the government ``should privatize everything that we possibly can.'' They are laying off or pushing into retirement tens of thousands of Federal employees. The cruelty is the point. Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Project 2025 architect, has said of Federal employees: ``We want to put them in trauma.'' It has been over 100 days since President Trump was inaugurated. Since then, the President of the United States has questioned his role to uphold the Constitution, an oath he made when he was sworn into office. He has also questioned whether Americans are entitled to due process, a foundational civil protection. He has endlessly flouted the rule of law. As a matter of fact, the American Civil Liberties Union has called the Trump administration's action: ``One of the most abusive and aggressive assaults on human rights in United States Presidential history.'' In carrying out their pro-billionaire agenda, Republicans have also gutted programs and agencies that serve as critical lifelines to American families, many of which include their very own constituents. The international leadership which Americans benefit greatly and built for decades is now destabilized by Trump's trade war against our allies. In just a few months, Trump has introduced chaos in the stock market and undermined confidence for consumers, investors, and small businesses, many of which have cautioned that they will have to close due to Trump's untenable tariffs which act as a tax on Americans and their businesses. At the same time, as families struggle, Trump has increased his wealth by billions since taking office, which is a slap in the face to American families struggling to put food on the table. Just last week, alarming new information came to light regarding foreign governments making business deals using Trump's crypto. A $2 billion business deal using the Trump firm's stablecoins with a fund backed by Abu Dhabi was announced at a conference in Dubai. This arrangement represents a significant contribution by a foreign government to President Trump's private crypto business that will abundantly grow the Trump family's wealth. While Trump and his billionaire insiders' wealth catapults, Americans are bracing themselves for layoffs, shortages, and higher prices in a recession engineered by Trump. While Trump and his family continue to land billions of dollars in deals and investments with American companies and foreign entities, Trump has asked Americans to just withstand the ``pain.'' This is from his economic policies. While Republicans work hard to make room for $7 trillion in tax cuts for American oligarchs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, Republicans are cutting $880 billion in funding from Medicaid food stamps for Americans who rely on this help. Is this how Donald Trump has improved the lives of American families--by damaging their retirement plans, jobs, and social safety nets? It is clear there is no such thing as business as usual anymore. This is why this week I took a stand against Trump's actions. For several years, I have led the effort in Congress to advance commonsense crypto legislation to protect American investors and consumers from fraud and from scams, while supporting crypto capital formation. After years of good faith, bipartisan negotiation and collaboration with regulators and stakeholders, former Chair McHenry and I even drafted payment stablecoin legislation that would create a strong Federal framework and put consumer protection front and center. My bill would foster innovation, while properly addressing the concerns I have long held about safeguarding our Nation's consumers from scams that inundated the crypto industry. Our bill also addressed national security concerns that adversaries and criminal organizations could use stablecoins for their very harmful purposes. While we are talking about crypto, I think it is important for me to let the people know that crypto is a digital form of private cash. It is very important that people understand that. We are trying to share the information so people understand about this digital form of private cash. However, we live in a different world now. Many of these risks have only increased since the inauguration of President Trump. President Trump's actions have drastically altered the crypto landscape in ways that are far more dangerous than what we could ever imagine. He has gutted the financial regulators tasked with protecting Americans. Ahead of the scheduled joint hearing between the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee on crypto market structure legislation, I presented a straightforward, acceptable, and basic request to the Republicans. I told the Chair of the Financial Services Committee that I would only give my consent to this hearing if Republicans would include provisions to block Trump--or any sitting President--and his family, as well as Members of Congress, from further profiting off crypto at the expense of American families in his crypto legislation. That is all I asked for. Unlike other hearings in Congress, this one was different. It required every Member--Democrat and Republican--to agree to hold this hearing. Well, I had to think whether I could agree to this hearing if there wasn't a commitment to address the corruption I and many across this country recognize. Whether a Republican or Democrat, any Member of Congress that intends to protect the public from the exploitation of government power should stand by these foundational principles of our democracy. Regrettably, Republicans rejected my request. In fact, rather than post my legislation to stop corruption, they decided to not even post their legislation. Then when I asked for a commitment to include a prohibition on owning crypto by the public officials writing the laws and rules governing crypto, that was rejected, as well. Because the joint hearing needed the consent of every Member, I could not in good faith agree to such a hearing. Madam Speaker, you see, through this legislation, Republicans are legitimizing Trump's and his family's efforts to enrich themselves on the backs of average Americans. Through his crypto businesses, Trump has created a pathway to circumvent our country's national security and anticorruption laws. This approach allows adversaries like China and Russia to curry favor, either blatantly or anonymously, through transfers of money to him and his inner circle. This week, we saw new reports that insiders made nearly $100 million on Melania's meme coin. Public officials being able to sell access using crypto undermine our democracy and free market system. Let's look at this for what it is. This is how authoritarian regimes do business. Trump has turned the Office of the Presidency into a personal moneymaking machine, and we must speak truth to power for the Americans we took an oath to protect. Let's take a look at the timeline of this, shall we? As the Republican Presidential nominee, Trump launched his family's crypto venture called World Liberty Financial, a decentralized finance crypto platform. The Trump family now has a claim on 75 percent of net revenues from token sales and 60 percent from World Liberty operations. Concerning crypto industry data also shows that many investors in World Liberty's crypto are based abroad in countries like Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. Because this company was launched during Trump's campaign, it gave him an avenue to possibly circumvent Federal laws that make it illegal for foreigners to donate to Presidential campaigns or inaugural funds. After the election and just before his inauguration, President Trump and the First Lady, Melania Trump, kicked off his Presidency with the launch of their own meme coins, which have reportedly lost the investors, who trusted their President, $2 billion. Guess what, Madam Speaker? The President and his family made at least $350 million. Then, in March, President Trump's World Liberty Financial announced the launch of its stablecoin, conveniently named USD1, just before our Financial Services Committee was scheduled to vote on legislation regulating the stablecoin market. Stablecoins are a type of crypto that claim to maintain a constant or ``stable'' value and are used in most crypto transactions today. In May, World Liberty Financial announced the firm will be making a $2 billion business deal with a fund backed by Abu Dhabi, using the Trump firm's stablecoins. This deal also includes Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange. Recently, Binance's founder has been seeking a pardon from the Trump administration after he pleaded guilty to money laundering and spent 4 months in Federal prison. Nevertheless, Republicans' stablecoin bill did nothing to address Trump's conflict and instead voted to hand Trump the authority to write the rules over his and his competitors' stablecoins. That is right. Traditionally, our Federal financial regulators were intentionally created by Congress to be independent from the White House in order to put the stability of our financial markets above politics. Trump has undermined that independence by making these independent agencies now clear all rules with the White House. If stablecoin legislation is passed, then agencies would draft rules that would be sent straight to the Trump White House, and he could directly make edits that would benefit his own stablecoin business. His business could also make adjustments to their operations, knowing the rules before their competitors. Later, in March, Trump's sons launched their own Bitcoin company called American Bitcoin. President Trump had conveniently already instructed the Treasury to create a Bitcoin reserve and a digital asset strategic reserve, a move that would boost the value of the Bitcoin he and his Cabinet members own, using taxpayer resources. Leading up to the White House's first crypto summit, World Liberty purchased $20 million in crypto tokens, some of which include those Trump picked for the strategic cryptocurrency reserve. I found out recently that, last month, President Trump was venturing deeper into crypto with a new project. This would be his very own video game that uses crypto. The video game is supposed to resemble Monopoly GO! Players travel around a board and earn money for constructing buildings in a digital city. Madam Speaker, you heard that right. Trump is producing video games that involve crypto to model his own real estate business, which went bankrupt. Who do you think is helping him launch this video game? It is the same person who helped launch his meme coin. This is his longtime pal, Bill Zanker. Other Trump companies, like Trump Media & Technology Group, which is the parent company of Truth Social, are also leveraging the Office of the President by partnering with major crypto platforms like Crypto.com, promising to purchase $250 million in crypto, initiating plans to launch crypto exchange traded funds, ETFs, and more. Trump is gearing up to host a May 22 dinner for top Trump meme coin holders. What this means is the more of his crypto that people buy, the higher their chances of getting access to Trump. We don't know everyone who is buying his cryptoassets. It could be foreign governments, individuals, or special interests looking to directly influence Presidential decisions. Trump ran on a campaign to put more money in the pockets of Americans. It turns out he just meant his pockets and those of his cronies. The first 100 days of the Trump administration were filled with failures, chaos, and incompetence. The United States' role and reputation globally have been severely damaged, and many Americans are worried they will no longer receive the Social Security checks and Medicaid they need. Now, congressional Republicans insist on pushing forward crypto market structure legislation, without addressing any of the corruption I have mentioned here today. Madam Speaker, I ask Members to keep in mind that all of this is occurring against this unprecedented backdrop. Every day that congressional Republicans refuse to stand up for their constituents, they diminish their power and Congress' and damage the country's democratic future. At the same time, Trump has undone Congress' decades-long ethics rules and enforcement laws. In doing so, he has removed many of the institutions and watchdogs that would serve as a check on his own self- profiteering. He has gutted the Corporate Transparency Act, frozen enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and disbanded the Department of Justice's National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. Trump has also been extremely clear about taking control of independent agencies, even issuing executive orders making sure they are no longer independent from the whims of politics. The Securities and Exchange Commission has suspended several ongoing cases for Trump donors and Trump's crypto investors. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently suspended its enforcement action against Justin Sun, founder of the TRON Foundation. The SEC's own complaint detailed how Sun sold unregistered crypto asset securities, manipulated trading to artificially inflate the prices of the tokens he issued, and secretly paid celebrities to tout his tokens, all in violation of well- established and widely recognized securities laws. The timing also raises significant concern as it aligns with Sun's $75 million investment in Trump's World Liberty Financial. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past with a new risky financial product. We can integrate the lessons of the past for a future that spearheads responsible innovation and growth. Remember the predatory mortgages from the financial crisis? Those were also sold as innovative products without sufficient guardrails. Instead, they caused millions of people to lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, reversing and worsening any gains that had been made in Black and Latino homeownership and wealth. The collapse of the housing market during this time displaced approximately 10 million Americans. As Trump wreaks chaos on the stock market and broader economy, he is also injecting additional risk to our financial system, ultimately putting the country on track for a recession and financial crisis. Let's start with Trump's deregulatory agenda. Trump has shuttered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans are paving the way for a reality where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is dismantled and the economy is no longer guided by independent regulators. Instead, regulators are being manipulated to serve the political and financial interests of the President and his billionaire insiders. In this context, Trump's light-touch crypto legislation could have real risk for us all. Trump has undone critical enforcement mechanisms that make our marketplace safer for consumers and hold bad actors accountable. The Trump administration is also integrating unnecessary risk and volatility into agencies. For example, according to recent reports, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, is attempting to experiment with crypto in their operations, including by paying grantees in stablecoin or crypto. One of Trump's executive orders leaves the door wide open for Trump to require the use of his stablecoins and meme coins in order to pay taxes or enter into other arrangements with the government. This would be just another in a string of this administration's egregious conflicts of interest. During the 2008 financial crisis, we saw how poorly regulated money market funds needed to be bailed out by the Treasury Secretary using the Exchange Stabilization Fund. We also saw how the Federal Reserve used its emergency lending authority to provide a bailout for American International Group. When we step back and view all of these factors, it is clear Trump is socializing risk to American families who are not engaging with the crypto ecosystem. I am deeply concerned that, as President, Trump will transfer the risks from his ventures and sponsorship of the crypto industry to the American taxpayer. As Members of Congress, we must legislate. Every day they try to shutter the CFPB, every day, we are fighting, whether it is at agency headquarters or in the court. As Members of Congress, we have the serious duty to protect and defend the American public. Since the Republican majority refuses to do its job, I am determined to shed light on these critical issues. Now, I will move from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into the diversity, equality, and inclusion that he has made a top priority in his administration. There is a continuing legacy of racism, sexism, and discrimination in our society. Bias and discrimination have contributed to the exclusion of qualified women, people of color, LGBT, and persons with disabilities, and veterans. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies are not about mandates and quotas. On the contrary. DEI is about eliminating bias, opening doors, and giving everyone, no matter what they look like or who they love a fair opportunity for employment, promotion, and access to capital. DEI is about understanding and knowing what these differences are and doing everything that can be done, both in government and in corporations, to just let those who wish to have a promotion--many of whom have worked for 25 and 30 years--have a chance to interview, to see if their talents are understood, and that they will have the opportunity to move up. Well, he has made DEI a very, very vocal point. He started out talking about getting rid of that. He sent memos around to all of the nonprofits and agencies telling them if they dare to have anything that looks like DEI, which he doesn't have a definition for, that they are going to be shut down, and that they are going to be penalized. Trump and Musk are targeting any institution that displays a focus towards diversity, equity, and inclusion. When I became the first Black and the first woman chair of the House Financial Services Committee back in 2019, I established Congress' first-ever Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Joyce Beatty. The Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion held 18 hearings, released three major reports, and brought long-overdue scrutiny to the ways in which systemic barriers in our financial system disadvantage entire communities. We exposed inequities in hiring and promotion. We shined a light on the racial wealth gap, and we demanded that corporate America take diversity seriously, not as a talking point but as a matter of policy, accountability, and economic justice. We know the numbers. Women make up more than 50 percent of the population, people of color over 40 percent. And yet, in the financial services industry, representation of these groups drops dramatically, especially for women of color, at every level of leadership. We are not dealing with a pipeline problem. We are dealing with an access problem; a power problem. I want to be clear. My commitment to DEI did not start there. Back in 2010, I helped to create the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at our Nation's top financial regulators. These offices were designed to embed DEI into the DNA of the financial system, from hiring and contracting to how institutions supervise the banks they regulate. These offices are now under assault, despite its legal mandate and critical role in promoting equity in hiring, contracting, and oversight across the financial system. Let me be clear. DEI is about more than just checking a box. It is about upward mobility. It is about making sure women and people of color aren't just in the room but they are also at the head of the table and also serving on boards, making investment decisions, and building wealth that lasts. That is why I fought to pass the Minority Business Resiliency Act, now law, and secured $600 billion for community development, financial institutions, and minority depository institutions during the pandemic. That is why I continue to support the Minority Business Development Agency, which has now been defunded and dismantled, even though it has provided critical support to businesses all around the country. Let me just continue on. You know, it is absolutely disturbing and upsetting to walk through what is happening in our country under President Trump and his entire administration. Let me be absolutely clear. We are in the midst of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis with over 771,000 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in this country. Rents and home prices are surging, and families are being priced out of their communities. Housing supply is not keeping up with demand. As a result, more and more families are pushed out onto the streets or forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries. Across the country, renters and homeowners alike are spending well over 30 and even 50 percent of their income on housing. That is why I will soon reintroduce my legislative housing package to address the housing and homelessness crisis head-on, which many of you are familiar with, my Housing Crisis Response Act, Ending Homelessness Act, and Downpayment Toward Equity Act. These bills will help increase the supply of housing, bring down costs, and revive the dream of homeownership for all. While Democrats are fighting to deliver real relief to families across this country, President Trump, along with co-president Elon Musk and Secretary Scott Turner, are working to decimate HUD from the inside out. Since January, this administration has halted critical agency operations, unlawfully put staff on leave or fired staff; terminated programs that are key to ending housing discrimination, such as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and the Equal Access Rules; compromised Americans' sensitive data by granting Elon Musk's so-called DOGE personnel with the agency exposing victims of domestic violence and/or assault; reported plans to launch dangerous blockchain and crypto experiments within HUD; and begun planning to shut down HUD field offices all over the country. Make no mistake, this agency isn't a luxury. It is a necessity. This agency helps our veterans, our seniors, people with disabilities, and families struggling to stay afloat. When I saw the harmful impact of this administration, I quickly took action and hand-delivered a letter to Secretary Turner, signed by 122 Democratic colleagues demanding answers. Now, I am talking about Secretary Turner who has been appointed to dismantle HUD by President Trump. What is equally concerning to me in Congress is that Republican Members continue their push to slash Federal investments in housing, which represent less than 1 percent of all Federal spending. In their latest fiscal year 2025 budget, they slashed housing by more than $500 million, which will put at least 32 million households at risk of eviction and homelessness. Just this week, Trump released a heartless fiscal year 2026 budget that cuts 26 billion from rental assistance programs, including public housing, housing choice vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and housing for seniors and people with disabilities. He is turning these lifeline programs into State block grants and imposing a cruel 2-year cap on aid for able-bodied adults. It doesn't stop there. His budget also calls for the obliteration of critical community development programs like the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and fair housing grants. These are the very programs that help create affordable housing, revitalize disadvantaged neighborhoods, and protect families from housing discrimination. Eliminating these programs will devastate our communities, displace families who are already on the brink of homelessness, and destroy the progress made to ensure every person in our Nation has access to safe, stable, and affordable housing. Despite all the chaos, I will not give up. I will not stand by. I will continue to fight against Trump's sabotage, defend the agency, and stand up for the families who depend on the agency to keep a roof over their heads. I have fought too long and too hard to let this administration tear it down, and I will not stop until our Nation's affordable housing and homelessness crisis ends once and for all. But that is not all. Let's take a look at Social Security. Trump promised repeatedly not to cut Social Security under his administration. He said: ``Social Security will not be touched, it will only be strengthened.'' But listen carefully to what Trump billionaire appointees are saying: Elon Musk called Social Security ``the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.'' Let me say it again. The co-president, not elected by anybody, appointed by Trump, Elon Musk called Social Security ``the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.'' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said only a ``fraudster'' would complain about a missed Social Security check. He is saying: Seniors, if you didn't get your Social Security check, don't complain because if you complain, you must be about fraud. You must be about something else rather than getting your check. I don't know who this Lutnick is, but I only know that he is, too, a billionaire. What the heck does he care about Social Security? What does he care about a missed Social Security check? Not a darn thing. Trump, Musk, and DOGE are undermining the infrastructure of Social Security by planning to cut 7,000 employees at the Social Security Administration. They are planning to take away the option to use the phone to file for benefits, requiring seniors to visit a field office if they do not use the internet. Trump has put these plans on hold for now, but we know this administration will continue to make life harder for seniors. Now Trump is adding Social Security numbers to the Social Security death list to force immigrants to leave the country. People who have their Social Security numbers placed on the death list by mistake can have their homes foreclosed on or bank accounts closed. These actions would violate data privacy law. Those who end up on the death list report, those mistakes can take months to fix. Trump is risking seniors' ability to receive the benefits they have earned. Now, I want to be very clear about this. He said he would not cut Social Security, but he is destroying the infrastructure of Social Security. So people can't have their questions answered, they can't get into a Social Security office that has been closed down and they can't get any answers by phone. This is outrageous, and I am so afraid of what is happening to those who depend on Social Security. I am so afraid that seniors with limited amounts of Social Security are going to end up hungry. Of course, they wouldn't be able to pay any rent unless they are getting subsidized by HUD in some way. Let's go to Medicaid. Just like with Social Security, Trump and the Republicans are playing games with people's lives because now they are coming for Medicaid through this dangerous reconciliation bill. Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, just confirmed the truth: 5.5 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage if Republicans cut the Federal match for expansion States; 3.3 million more would lose coverage if they cap Federal Medicaid spending in those same States; 2.3 million people, mostly low income seniors and people with disabilities, would lose coverage if Republicans repeal Biden's enrollment rule; and a staggering 8.6 million Americans would be pushed off Medicaid if Republicans limit States' ability to fund the program through provider taxes. Here is what that means in real life: seniors losing nursing home care, children losing access to basic checkups, cancer patients cut off in the middle of treatment, and families forced to choose between a doctor's visit and rent. Republicans say these cuts are about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, but Americans know what this really is. It is an attack on the most vulnerable to pay for the wealthy and the well-connected. These cuts would not just shrink the deficit. They would shrink the life expectancy of millions. They would drive up hospital costs, emergency room visits, and medical bankruptcies. These proposals would lead entire communities, especially communities of color, Black, Latino, and rural populations, without a healthcare safety net. Republicans don't care as long as their billionaire boys' club can pad their pockets. It is a stark reminder of whose interests they are really serving. This is from a Washington Post article: ``One month into a sweeping new tariff regime that President Donald Trump vowed would bring jobs and factories `roaring back,' a Pennsylvania manufacturing hub is full of skepticism. ``Trump once told supporters here in the Lehigh Valley that they know `better than almost any place in this country' how global trade has `outsourced your industries' and `wiped out your steel mills.' Now, even in one of the communities the President suggested would benefit most from his tariffs, his economic overhaul is disrupting lives and testing some voters' patience in an election-deciding swing State. ``New hires at a local truck-making plant had just started on the shop floor last month when their company announced an abrupt change: layoffs that could hit more than 10 percent of the workforce and that the company blamed on tariffs and other economic uncertainty. Even Trump's fans sometimes grimace at his plans to remake the world economy, worried about higher costs in a politically competitive area still scattered with lawn signs that read: `Trump Low Prices Kamala High Prices.' '' He had these signs all over America, promising low prices. ``Almost two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, and a lasting backlash could be especially consequential for Republicans in areas such as the Lehigh Valley, a perennial Rust Belt battleground where Trump's campaign pitch resonated with many voters.'' They believed him. ``Trump's tariffs have put pressure on some of the GOP's most vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including the local Congressman, freshman Ryan Mackenzie, as they try to defend Trump's agenda while also acknowledging their constituents' concerns. ``Officials here are doubtful that any tariffs, no matter how drastic, can recreate the economy of the past, when one steel company's facilities in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, alone employed 30,000 people. Manufacturing is still the biggest industry in the Lehigh Valley, with investment booming in recent years. At the same time, leaders are proud that they managed to diversify their economy after Bethlehem Steel collapsed decades ago. ``Brian Higgins, a longtime Republican commissioner in Lower Macungie Township, home to the truck plant, said it is hard to imagine manufacturing rebounding to where it was decades ago. `I don't think anybody thinks that you could bring the Lehigh Valley back to what it was,' Higgins said. `Could we bring some manufacturing back there? Probably, but not to the extent that people believe.' `` `I just think it is going to cost more money, and then it is going to hurt us with retaliatory tariffs,' said Higgins, a self-described `Reagan Republican' who could not bring himself to vote for Trump. ``Trump argues that levying tariffs on imports will give him leverage for trade deals and ultimately compel companies to ramp up production in the United States. Critics say the strategy will raise costs for consumers and destabilize the economy while leaving businesses too uncertain about the future to make plans.'' Here, let me just share with you what was on an article from The Washington Post: Trump's tariffs are causing untold harm to America. Let me read another story. This story is from The Wall Street Journal, ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.'' The Wall Street Journal said that. ``President Trump will fire his first tariff salvo on Saturday against those notorious American adversaries, Mexico and Canada. They will get hit with a 25 percent border tax, while China, a real adversary, will endure 10 percent. This reminds us of the old Bernard Lewis joke that it is risky to be America's enemy, but it can be fatal to be its friend. ``Leaving China aside, Mr. Trump's justification for this economic assault on the neighbors makes no sense. While House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said they have `enabled illegal drugs to pour into America,' but drugs have flowed into the U.S. for decades and will continue to do so as long as Americans keep using them. Neither country can stop it. ``Drugs may be an excuse since Mr. Trump has made clear he likes tariffs for their own sake. `We don't need the products they have,' Mr. Trump said on Thursday. `We have all the oil you need. We have all the trees you need, meaning the lumber.' ``Mr. Trump sometimes sounds as if the U.S. shouldn't import anything at all, that America can be a perfectly closed economy making everything at home. This is called autarky, and it isn't the world we live in or one that we should want to live in, as Mr. Trump may soon find out. ``Take the U.S. auto industry, which is really a North American industry because supply chains in the three countries are highly integrated. In 2024, Canada supplied almost 13 percent of U.S. imports of auto parts and Mexico nearly 42 percent. Industry experts say a vehicle made on the continent goes back and forth across borders a half dozen times or more, as companies source components and add value in the most cost-effective ways, and everyone benefits. ``The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative says that in 2023 the industry added more than $809 billion to the U.S. economy, or about 11.2 percent of total U.S. manufacturing output, supporting `9.7 million direct and indirect jobs.' In 2022, the U.S. exported $75.4 billion in vehicles and parts to Canada and Mexico. That number jumped 14 percent in 2023 to $86.2 billion, according to the American Automotive Policy Council. ``American carmakers would be much less competitive without this trade. Regional integration is now an industrywide manufacturing strategy--also employed in Japan, Korea, and Europe--aimed at using a variety of high-skilled and low-cost labor markets to source components, software, and assembly. ``The result has been that U.S. industrial capacity in autos has grown alongside an increase in imported motor vehicles, engines, and parts. From 1995 to 2019, imports of autos, engines, and parts rose 169 percent while U.S. industrial capacity in autos, engines, and parts rose 71 percent. ``As the Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome puts it, the data shows that `as imports go up, U.S. production goes up.' Thousands of good- paying auto jobs in Texas, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan owe their competitiveness to this ecosystem, relying heavily on suppliers in Mexico and Canada. ``Tariffs will also cause mayhem in the cross-border trade in farm goods. In fiscal 2024, Mexican food exports made up about 23 percent of total U.S. agricultural imports, while Canada supplied some 20 percent. Many top U.S. growers have moved to Mexico because limits on legal immigration have made it hard to find workers in the U.S. Mexico now supplies 90 percent of avocados sold in the U.S. Is Mr. Trump now an avocado nationalist? ``Then, there is the prospect of retaliation, which Canada and Mexico have shown they know how to do for maximum political impact. In 2009, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats ended a pilot program that allowed Mexican long-haul truckers into the U.S. as stipulated in NAFTA. Mexico responded with targeted retaliation on 90 U.S. goods to pressure industries in key congressional districts. ``These included California grapes and wine, Oregon Christmas trees and cherries, jams and jellies from Ohio, and North Dakota soy. When Mr. Trump imposed steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018, Mexico got results using the same tactic, putting tariffs on steel, pork products, fresh cheese, and bourbon. ``Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to respond to U.S. tariffs on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Canada could suffer a larger GDP hit since its economy is so much smaller, but American consumers will feel the bite of higher costs for some goods. ``None of this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term. The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even with friends, won't make other countries eager to do deals. Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins some token concessions, but if a North American trade war persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in history.'' Continuing with The Washington Post article: `` `The Trump administration's policies are delivering much-needed economic relief for everyday Americans while laying the groundwork for a long-term restoration of American greatness,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement, noting that inflation cooled in March and that gross private domestic investment increased by 22 percent in the first quarter of 2025. ``Employers added 177,000 jobs last month, a strong showing, despite the upheaval from Trump's tariffs announced April 2. In interviews, Lehigh Valley voters who had heard about the Mack layoffs often brushed them off as routine--the company has downsized before--or said they weren't sure they believed the firm's explanation. ``But many, including Trump voters, also said they are bracing for economic pain in the valley, which spans two counties: Lehigh, which Democrat Kamala Harris won by less than 3 percentage points in the fall, and Northampton, a bellwether that frequently backs the winners of Presidential elections and went narrowly for Trump. ``Adrienne Rinehimer, 51, said she is building a house and might push back her timeline if prices get too high. Retiree Rick Janko was mostly''--he was at one time--``mostly supportive of the President's agenda but rolled his eyes at claims that tariffs will bring manufacturing back. Like Rinehimer, he cast his ballot for Trump last year.'' Mr. Speaker, with the short time left, I say that I came to the floor to talk about the harm being caused by the Trump administration, the corruption in crypto, and the harm to people just trying to live their lives. Trump's regime is going after the supports that government provides to help Americans live in safe homes, put food on the table, and take care of the health of their kids. His tariffs are leading to a recession and raising costs of food, cars, and housing. The consistent and cruel policies are not just harming our pocketbooks, but they are going after our democracy. Mr. Speaker, this concludes the time that I have been afforded on the floor today to give light to and transparency to what is happening in this administration. I know that it is hard to believe. I know that people could not believe that the President of the United States is undermining our democracy, but this is a President who has no care, no concern, and no respect. This is a President who dresses himself up like the Pope and invites photographers to come and take a look. When I talk about disrespect, this President disrespects everybody but his money. This is a democracy that is under fire. This is a democracy that is at risk. This is a democracy that Democrats and Republicans alike should be concerned about, that we would be willing to fight for. It was at one point in time that we thought those on the opposite side of the aisle were so patriotic. Where is their patriotism now? Where will they stand up when the democracy is at stake? This is a time when we thought that they were so concerned about law and order. They have the biggest crook in the history of this country, having been convicted 34 times. They cannot say one word about what is wrong and about what he is doing and how he has no respect for the law. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Republicans: Why don't you prove who you say you are instead of being afraid of the President of the United States, who you think will primary you? Why is it you keep your mouths shut because you don't stand up for the people in your districts because you are afraid that President Trump will be angry with you? Enough said. I thank you all so very much for affording me this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 28, a partisan Congressional Review Act resolution that will block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from supervising payment apps offered by Big Tech firms like Apple and Google. Before I explain why this resolution is bad, let us not ignore that President Trump and co-president Musk are tearing down key government agencies and programs as we speak, like the CFPB and Social Security. Last week, the President launched a global trade war against the rest of the world, including our friends, resulting in a record 2-day loss of $6.6 trillion in wealth. Fed Chair Powell warned that these tariffs will lead to higher inflation and job losses. Later today, Republicans will try to pass the President's budget that is loaded with $7 trillion in tax cuts for Musk and the other Big Tech billionaires, all while they are slashing Medicaid by $880 billion and walking into our agencies and firing employees, some who have been working at these agencies for 10, 15, 20 years, telling them to get out by 5 o'clock. I absolutely respect the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Hill, and what he does, but to talk about good government, he is absolutely defending what nobody would consider good government. We are in a chaotic position in the government of the United States of America. This is the worst we have ever seen. We have never seen anything like this. As a matter of fact, I think it is a coup d'etat. I am here today because instead of considering bills to lower costs for consumers, Republicans have called up yet another bill to help out the richest man on the planet, the richest man on the planet who is a friend of Mr. Trump's, who has not been elected by anybody and who is absolutely controlling our government now. He is controlling the firing of people and the destroying of agencies. All of that is being done by an unelected billionaire who is intent on changing this government in ways that make it look like a dictatorship. Notably, this resolution will shield Elon Musk's X app, which will soon get into the payments business, from supervision and oversight by the CFPB. The CFPB oversees the largest banks and the services they provide to consumers, including their payment apps. However, until the larger participant rule was issued, the CFPB did not have the authority to supervise and examine the payment platforms of Big Tech companies. In 2024, the CFPB leveled the playing field between big banks and Big Tech. This rule was necessary because Big Tech and other nonbank firms have increasingly offered mobile wallets and payment apps for consumers to use. While the same consumer protection laws that apply to the banks do not apply to these big Big Tech firms, it is critical that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau examine them to ensure that they, too, are following the law. This will help the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau oversee these great Big Tech apps to protect the millions of consumers who use them and their digital wallets from fraud, to safeguard their sensitive personal data, and to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Let's be clear. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule that Republicans want to repeal by passing S.J. Res. 28 imposes no new standards on these big, large payment apps. CFPB's rule simply allows the government to check these companies are following the law--the very law that Congress passed to give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the authority to examine the largest Big Tech participants. Payment fraud is at an all-time high, and these payment apps play a big role in that increase. I have received more and more complaints from constituents who have been tricked, scammed, and defrauded out of their hard-earned money on these payment apps. Consumer use of payment apps is only increasing, with lower income households experiencing a disproportionate share of complaints. Between 2018 and 2021, fraud-related complaints involving Venmo, Cash App, and other payment apps surged by over 460 percent while financial losses skyrocketed by more than 360 percent. Candidly, we should be working together across the aisle to tackle this rise in payment fraud, not undermining the authority of the agency that can enforce the law. This should not be a partisan issue. Instead, Democrats have to fight back against both Trump's efforts to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Republican efforts to gut the authorities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I am hopeful that we are making progress in stopping these efforts to protect big Big Tech and predatory lenders. A district court judge blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before the administration appealed the ruling, and even this terrible resolution before us received bipartisan opposition in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here and discuss these anticonsumer CRAs today, our constituents are deeply concerned about losing Social Security and Medicaid because of Elon Musk's reckless cuts to government. Families and businesses across America are struggling as Trump raises taxes on Americans nationwide through tariffs. It makes no sense to pass legislation that eliminates oversight of these big Big Tech apps while millions of people are being defrauded, scammed, and basically ripped off. We see this bill for what it is: a thank-you gift to Elon Musk and other Big Tech billionaires who came to Trump's rescue during the 2024 election. We all saw them front and center at Trump's inauguration. You saw those billionaires accompanying him. Why are all the billionaires getting together? They are getting together because they don't want to pay more taxes. They want to get rid of employees who are providing all kinds of services to the constituents of this country in order for the richest people in the country to pay less taxes. Well, all of them run companies that will directly benefit from passing this resolution. Enough is enough. I urge Members of this House to show some courage and stand up for consumers. Stand up for the rule of law and reject this harmful legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say, but I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is interesting that my friend, Chairman Hill, raised process concerns over the CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rule that would include following the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Speaker, really? This doesn't make good sense. Shouldn't Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE minions have to follow the law? Let me be clear. It is unconstitutional for the President to delete the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or any other agency without congressional approval. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, CFPB's larger participant rule does not apply any new consumer protection standards. It only helps the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ensure that Big Tech companies comply with the laws they must already follow. Both banks and nonbanks are already subject to Federal consumer financial protection laws, but Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supervision is a key tool to ensure that Big Tech follows the law and does not misuse consumer data and that consumers are not being scammed, defrauded, or unlawfully debanked. This rule allows the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to also conduct routine exams of the 17 largest nonbank payment apps that facilitated $12.8 billion payment transactions in 2021 with a total dollar value of about $1.7 trillion. This is not the first time the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has used this authority in this way. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau previously issued five larger participant rules to examine the largest nonbanks with respect to consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfers, and automobile financing. Why should Big Tech get special treatment? Why should they be treated any differently? Our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), claimed that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did not conduct sufficient cost-benefit analysis for this rule, but that is not accurate. There are more than 30 pages of highly detailed cost-benefit analysis, and the gentleman just doesn't like it. Mr. Speaker, we know that side of the aisle wishes to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have tried in every way possible. Yet, this side of the aisle maintains that our constituents send us here to represent them. Consumers need somewhere to make complaints. Those complaints need to be investigated. Organizations need to be fined if those operations or organizations are abusing them or misusing them. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this issue, I remind everyone what is truly happening. Through this CRA, Republicans are opening the door for President Trump and co-president Musk to further enrich themselves and all of their business ventures with their own digital payment systems, including X and Trump's new payment system, Stablecoin. Mr. Speaker, this is a point that everybody should pay attention to: The President of the United States and his family have created their own crypto companies. In addition to that, in the middle of us trying to negotiate on Stablecoin to come to some agreement about guardrails to protect the average investor, he has now founded a new company where he is going to own Stablecoin. As a matter of fact, Republican efforts to dismantle and weaken the CFPB's authority allows Trump and Musk's companies to conveniently avoid the CFPB's oversight and supervision. When I was chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Democrats held Big Tech companies to account, including convening a hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over his plans to develop cryptocurrency called Libra. Moreover, when Democrats led passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, we empowered the CFPB to supervise any large nonbank, including Big Tech, when they facilitate payments or offer financial products to consumers to ensure that consumers are always protected, no matter who they are dealing with. Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with now through Trump's and Musk's unapologetic conflicts of interest and self-profiteering poses far greater risks. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is extraordinarily important. We worked hard for consumers to have somewhere to go when they have complaints about being ripped off. Why is it that we would have any Member of Congress in any way oppose protecting our consumers? I can't answer that. I don't know why. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Seth Frotman, CFPB's former general counsel and student loan ombudsman summed up our current situation well. He testified: ``You, your family, your neighbors, and your community are at risk today because President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought have corruptly handed over the keys of our Nation's consumer watchdog to the largest banks and tech companies in the world. What is happening at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an insult--to Congress, to the rule of law--to all of us.'' ``When you look past the rhetoric--the deceptively labeled bills touting through-the-looking-glass `reform'--what is going on in the executive branch, alongside what is being talked about here in Congress, really boils down to the one time-tested proposition: Which side are you on? ``If you are going to stand idly by when the Nation's consumer watchdog is decimated--if you push a legislative agenda of more junk fees, abusive medical debt collection practices, Big Tech domination, and predatory lending--then the answer is pretty clear.'' Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 28 is opposed by nearly 200 consumer, civil rights, religious, and good governance organizations. It was also opposed by a bipartisan group of Senators. I urge my colleagues to vote for American consumers, not the unelected Elon Musk and other Big Tech oligarchs and billionaires that are just waiting to take over this country. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to yet another harmful bill put forth by Republicans, S.J. Res. 18, a resolution to allow the biggest banks to increase fees on their customers. You heard me right. I said this resolution will increase bank fees, and it will impact 23 million households, or roughly 1 in 5 households, that incur overdraft fees each year. Despite Trump and Republican campaign promises to lower prices, the President decided to launch a global trade war just last week that wiped out a 2-day record of $6.6 trillion of wealth, affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Moreover, the Fed Chair has said these policies will fuel higher inflation by sending the prices of consumer goods up. It doesn't seem like the President cares about prices anymore, saying: ``I couldn't care less. I hope they raise their prices because, if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars. We have plenty.'' Trump doesn't care that prices for cars and other goods will rise significantly. We are here today because Republicans now want to overturn a rule that limits bank overdraft fees to $5, down from $35 or more, and saves consumers $5 billion a year. Not surprisingly, more than 80 percent of Americans, including Republicans, want to get these high overdraft fees under control, yet Republicans will vote to take off the limits on these fees and say that higher fees are good for America. Let's clear up a few myths. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule does not ban overdraft fees. Rather, it sets a reasonable limit at $5 per overdraft charged by the biggest banks in America. Despite what opponents may claim, the rule does not impose a hard cap on this fee. It provides flexibility for large banks to charge more if their estimated costs and losses in providing this service are higher than $5. The rule even allows big banks to charge higher fees if they provide a simple, upfront disclosure to consumers. Think about that. Why is it if you want to charge more money than the $5, you don't want to tell your customers that you are raising and charging more? I don't get it. That is right, the biggest banks can feel free to charge higher fees, but they just have to tell consumers that they plan to do so. Furthermore, this rule does not apply to any small community banks or credit unions. In fact, 97 percent of all banks and virtually all credit unions are completely exempt from the rule. Let me say that again. Community banks and nearly all credit unions are exempt from the rule. We are only debating whether the biggest banks in America should be able to raise these fees. Republicans will try reverse psychology to convince Americans that it is in their best interests to fork over even more money to the big banks. Mr. Speaker, let me help Republicans out. Making Americans pay high overdraft fees only benefits the big banks, no one else. Let me be even clearer. A vote for this resolution is a vote for big banks. A vote for this resolution is a vote for big fees. A vote for this resolution is a vote against your constituents. Don't just take my word for it. Nearly 300 consumer, civil rights, labor, religious, and community groups all across the country strongly oppose this resolution. Mr. Speaker, these fee increases that Republicans are trying to jam down Americans' throats couldn't come at a worse time. The Federal Reserve reported that a key metric of inflation is going up, and that was before President Trump sent the stock market further into the tank with the global trade war he launched last week. Republicans promised that inflation would go down and the stock market would thrive under his leadership, but 4 months into the new administration, that has proven to be false. Whether you like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or not, it just doesn't make good sense to hike bank fees on 23 million hardworking families. Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to oppose this resolution at a markup in February, and I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously reject it on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I think Mr. Hill said many banks do not charge overdraft fees. Then why are they opposed to $5? Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rose, I believe, said that there are constituents who say: Don't stop my overdraft. However, did they say: Charge me exorbitant amounts for overdraft? I don't think so. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fields).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bynum).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans keep complaining about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let's review the terrible things they have done. Since 2011, they secured more than $21 billion for 205 million consumers who were harmed by bad actors including the biggest banks. The agency has received more than 10 million complaints from harmed consumers, and insured financial firms responded. That is, on average, 25,000 complaints each week. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps servicemembers, veterans, students, and older Americans. Mr. Speaker, they don't care who you are. They help Republicans, Independents, and Democratic consumers. The CFPB will not be able to help anyone if Trump and Musk are successful in shutting them down. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time here trying to figure out what is going on in this country. We are here taking up all of this time talking about $5 and talking about trying to limit the fees that people are being charged. We are saying: Let's help our consumers. Let's help our constituents and stop having them become victims of these huge fees that have been charged by the banks. They say that a lot of banks are not charging them, but still, they are fighting $5 that we are trying to limit these fees for. We said that all we are asking you to do is to let the people know exactly what you are doing about fees. How much are you charging them? I don't know what is going on. I don't know what is going on with them, and I don't know what is going on with the President of the United States of America. He has put us in a chaotic situation. For example, I just got word that he has changed his mind about tariffs. We were all trying to convince this administration that they should not be raising the tariffs on all of these countries and the fact that they were even harming our relationship with our allies, but no. He placed tariffs on every country in the world, even for an island that had nothing but penguins on it. So today what he said was: Oh, I changed my mind. I am going to raise the tariffs on China, but I think I will put a 90-day pause on all of the stuff that I did raising these tariffs for all these other countries just a few days ago. When we think about the chaotic situation that we are in while we are here talking about $5, Mr. Speaker, you know that this President fired our nuclear experts from the National Nuclear Security Administration. So here we are without the protection of the experts to let us know what should be done to make sure that we don't have nuclear power destroying us all. After firing them, they discovered they had made a big mistake. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? They called them back. However, they couldn't find them because they had erased their addresses. So they looked and looked and looked until they could beg them to come back. Then there were thousands of employees at the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the bird flu outbreak that were fired. They were fired when we were facing another pandemic. Mr. Speaker, they have forced seniors to go in person to apply for Social Security. I am so worried about our seniors and Social Security. He promised us that he would not cut Social Security, but what he did was he destroyed the infrastructure of Social Security. He fired people and shut off the telephones making them go in person to find their Social Security office, which they are closing all of them down. Now all of our Social Security and our seniors are at stake not knowing what is going to happen and not knowing how to get in touch with the Social Security personnel who work there to get these questions answered. I could go on and on about this Cabinet sharing war plans on Signal chats. Do I have to tell you more about the chaos, Mr. Speaker, the disruption? Do I have to tell you more about the uncertainty and the situation that we find ourselves in, Mr. Speaker? We are here trying to place a lid on these overdraft fees because people don't know whether or not they are going to have a job to pay anything let alone the overdraft fees. They are not going to have money to put food on the table, to make sure that the children have clothing to go to school and to dress properly and all of that. Mr. Speaker, for $5, we are here because they refuse to agree that there should be a cap on overdraft. If they want to charge more, we give them an out. They can do it in two ways. They can just tell the people that this is what they are doing, they want to increase for whatever reason, or they can calculate what they say their costs are for being able to provide overdraft fees and that they have to have a little more than $5. I don't know where we are going with all of this. I am totally disgusted, $5. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, when did it become unpopular to put more hands in the pockets of working families? This resolution will cost American families $5 billion a year or about $250 per household in higher overdraft fees. No one in America wants to send a $250 check to the biggest banks every year. To put this debate into perspective, Republicans spent a lot of time last Congress attacking a big bank capital rule called Basel III endgame. Republicans convened one dozen hearings on the topic and repeatedly referred to the 426 comments the public made on the proposal. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many comments the CFPB received on the overdraft rule? They received more than 48,000 complaints, most of which strongly supported the rule which is more than 100 times the number of comments on the capital rule. Consumers are just fed up with these types of junk fees, and the last thing they want is for Congress to raise them. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join Senate bipartisan opposition to this resolution and vote ``no.'' Stand up for our constituents. Stand up for the people who depend on us every day to make sure they too can have a decent quality of life. We are watching what Trump and Musk are doing, aligned with the billionaires who want more and more money and don't want to pay their taxes, and we are here fighting about $5. Give me a break. I guess enough has been said. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.