Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters from organizations that oppose this terrible bill: a letter from the AFL-CIO, which is scoring this vote, and a letter from Public Citizen.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that it is irresponsible to turn this bill over to the President of the United States, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Arkansas has no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me again reiterate that a vote for S. 1582 is a vote to give Trump the pen to write the rules that would put more money in his family's pockets. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote for consumer harm. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to plant the seeds for the next financial crisis. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to endanger our national security. That is why I will be voting ``no'' on S. 1582, the GENIUS Act, and I urge all other Members to also vote ``no''. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, over the last hours we heard arguments from the other side of the aisle that the United States must prioritize innovation. The Republican crypto bills we considered will create giant loopholes in our Federal financial laws that put consumers and investors at risk in the name of innovation. These bills would increase the chance of another costly financial crisis like the one in 2008 that led to trillions of dollars of wealth being wiped out in the name of innovation. It comes as a surprise to me that the last bill we will debate would block any research, pilots, or consideration about how to digitize the U.S. dollar, it is the reason that I call H.R. 1919 the anti-innovation act. We have been discussing a lot about cryptocurrency. We have talked about two different acts, which are the CLARITY Act and the GENIUS Act. We have talked about a lot of intricacies of crypto. The general public does not understand all of this because the big issuers, the big boys, literally kind of own all of the information. They are the issuers, et cetera, et cetera. It is time for the United States Government to take charge, and our central bank must be involved in the study and the research so that we don't have issuers with crypto or anything else without the Federal Government knowing about it and being in control. H.R. 1919 would immediately halt and prohibit the United States from any research and exploration of the benefits of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. A central bank digital currency is essentially a digital version of the dollar, issued by the Federal Government, that uses crypto technology known as blockchain to record everything and everybody who owns tokens. Open it up. Let us know who the big issuers are. There are two types of CBDCs, and this bill bans both of them. A retail CBDC is made available directly to consumers from the Federal Reserve, from a bank, or other Federal institutions. A wholesale CBDC is not available to the public but only to the banks and other financial institutions. This bill would ban both of these kinds of CBDCs. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans raise concerns about CBDCs, they are talking about retail CBDCs, but because they are so averse to knowledge and averse to studying things, they have no idea that their bill blocks research into other forms of digitizing the dollar that would truly cut costs for people. For example, J.P. Morgan Chase has estimated that $100 billion could be saved in cross-border transactions every year if a wholesale CBDC is adopted. Earlier this week in the Rules Committee, we heard Republicans claim that we need to weaken oversight of private crypto because doing so will help cross-border payments. I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why should we abandon any research into making the greenback ready for the future? If this bill passes, the United States would be the only country in the world to ban any research in the world on CBDC. What are my colleagues afraid of? Why do they not want the knowledge explained? Mr. Speaker, 137 countries are racing ahead. Some are studying, and others are issuing their own CBDC. The foreign currency markets are evolving, but Republicans want to stick their heads in the stand. Those 137 countries and currency unions represent 98 percent of the global GDP, and China is one of the frontrunners in the global race to implement a viable CBDC. Do my friends across the aisle know why China is quickly rolling out its digital currency? It desperately wants to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar to determine the dominance of our currency. Mr. Speaker, America reaps great riches because our currency, the dollar, is the premium currency used around the world for all sorts of trade. It is used from sales of oil to commodities to financial contracts. One of those benefits is that when we take out a loan to buy a car or use our credit cards, our interest rates are much lower than in other countries. Another benefit is that the United States can pressure bad actors from Iran to Russia to China by cutting off access to our financial system and the dollar using sanctions. Those same countries would love to replace the dollar with their currency or something else. One way China hopes to do this is to show that the dollar is an antiquated currency, whereas the Chinese currency is the future. It is so shortsighted to not even study how the dollar could be digitized, especially during the same week that Republicans want to let private companies create their own currency. It is very important for all of us to understand that if we want to be innovative and if we want innovation, we will study and we will understand so we then will be able to explain. If we really want to protect the American dollar, we will not put our heads in the sand. We will allow this research to go on to make sure that the American dollar stays strong even in digital. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence. He knows more about digital assets than anybody on the opposite side of the aisle.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who is also the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not the only ones who want to study CBDC. In 2021, my dear friend, Chairman Hill, worked with Representative Foster to introduce the Central Bank Digital Currency Study Act. Chairman Hill also wrote a letter to the Fed asking for information. After the Fed agreed to do a study, he issued a statement saying: The Fed is finally taking actionable steps to do what we have been asking them to do for 2 years, and we are pleased to see Chairman Powell announce steps toward making a digital dollar a reality. I ask the gentleman: What changed? We need more research. We need to learn more, so we need to vote ``no'' on this bill. It goes in the opposite direction from what the gentleman wants and has been asking for. Finally, we have a chance to vote, and certainly I am asking for a ``no'' vote, and I hope that the gentleman would, too. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, yet, again, my colleague confuses retail and wholesale CBDC. Banning wholesale CBDC is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with modernizing how American financial institutions and our central bank engage in intrabank cross-border transactions. This suggestion of Big Brother and monitoring is just a fabrication, a bogeyman. We must support financial innovation and not hide from the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Earlier my colleagues praised our wonderful private sector, and we know now my friends do not like studies, but I would encourage them to read the study from our biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, explaining how CBDC's can save $120 billion in cross-border payments. Please read the study. Even if you don't like studies, read it anyway. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we fall further and further behind the global economic stage with congressional Republicans' policies. We are already seeing inflation rise on consumer goods as Trump's tariffs take place. Now, Republicans want to raise the cost of auto loans, credit card fees, and mortgages for Americans by forcing the dollar to become a relic of the past. That is why I will vote ``no.'' Further, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Himes made a great argument and a great point about ignorance. He believes that this is an ignorant bill, and it just does not speak well for the Members of Congress not wanting to do research and study to determine what is in the best interest of the dollar and our country. 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. Mr. Speaker, this big, ugly bill strikes healthcare from 17 million Americans, shutters hospitals, and starves 12 million people by taking away their food stamps. These cuts add up to $1.3 trillion, the exact cost of the tax cut Republicans are handing out to the richest 1 percent of Americans. That is not all. The entire bill will add a whopping $3.3 trillion to our Nation's $35 trillion debt. So much for Republicans being the party of fiscal responsibility. They are also gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that returned $21 billion to families cheated by megabanks. They are cutting housing funds during an affordability crisis and weakening oversight of Wall Street. Maybe they have forgotten that the people elected them, not Trump or the billionaire class. Mr. Speaker, it will be a cold day in hell before we let Republicans get away with this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3422, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act. This bill deals with the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, which is an independent SEC office that was established to advance the interests of small businesses. The office proactively works to identify and address unique challenges faced by minority-owned, women-owned, and rural small businesses as well as businesses located in natural disaster areas. My bill requires the SEC small business advocate to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital-raising options for these underrepresented small businesses. My bill would also require the Office to meet annually with representatives of State securities commissions to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach to addressing the unique needs of underrepresented businesses. The North American Securities Administrators Association, or NASAA, strongly supports this legislation, particularly as it would strengthen collaboration and coordination between regulators. In a letter to my office, written in support of this bill when it was previously introduced, NASAA emphasized former Republican SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar's comments that ``for a capital formation agenda to succeed, it is essential that State and Federal regulators work together to support the businesses that seek to engage in these offerings while also protecting investors.'' Indeed, my bill makes sure that Federal regulators and State regulators do just that, while at the same time advancing the cause of small business capital formation across the spectrum. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague (Mrs. Wagner) for cosponsoring my bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this bill into law.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) referred to me because the big banks hate me. They love him. They support him. They don't support me. Let's see whose side he is on. As a matter of fact, he is here talking about not being in support of big bank mergers because he is trying so hard to get more community banks. We need more community banks, but he is a long way from getting what he is talking about. The fact is, we really do need them because of the big bank mergers. One of the things he could do to increase having community banks that relate to the neighborhoods and relate to the people in the communities is to stop allowing these big mergers to take place. I rise to express my opposition to S.J. Res. 13, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would rescind a rule the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has put forth to improve their bank merger application review procedures. Consumer groups, experts, and I have long rung the alarm bell as the Federal Government rubberstamped bank mergers for decades to the detriment of competition. The result has been a growing number of banking deserts where communities lack even one bank branch. Let's see what happens after a merger. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to listen to me. I want him to know what happens after the big bank mergers. They close branches. They close down branches all throughout the communities. They lay off the workers. They need less workers, and so they start laying them off. They raise interest rates and fees on their customers. We lose relationship banking, community involvement, and a personal touch from your neighborhood bank. When these big bank mergers come in, you don't have tellers anymore. As a matter of fact, when they close down the branches, you try to get them on the telephone. Have you tried to talk with a bank manager on the telephone with these menus that they have? They run you around from so-called extension to extension to extension. You lose all of these relationships. In fact, while thousands of bank mergers were approved in the last few decades, the last bank merger application that regulators denied was denied in 2003, 22 years ago. Meanwhile, community banks have disappeared as the number of banks declined from more than 18,000 in 1990 to fewer than 5,000 today. Meanwhile, the biggest banks have grown much bigger through mergers and, not surprisingly, are charging customers more for banking products and services. For example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that the largest banks charged between $400 and $500 every year in additional interest and other fees for their average credit cardholders, compared to smaller community banks and credit unions. In fact, that negative consumer impact is one of the many reasons I and more than 90 percent of public commenters urged regulators to oppose a recent Capital One and Discover merger--I think the gentleman supported that--which created the largest credit card issuer. The Trump administration approved it anyway, and I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) did what Trump wanted him to do. We already have enough megabanks with too much corporate power. In the mid-1990s, the 20 largest banks held 15 percent of all bank assets. Today, they hold more than 65 percent of all bank assets. The four largest megabanks hold more assets than the next 75 largest banks combined. These megabanks are too big to manage. Take Wells Fargo, for example. They grew larger through mergers and then repeatedly violated the law and harmed millions of consumers. It got so bad that the Fed, under former Chair Janet Yellen's leadership, imposed an asset cap that remains in place to this day. That is not easily done. Mr. Speaker, you don't hear Treasury doing that, placing asset caps, but they did that because of the way that Wells Fargo bank had just mismanaged and disregarded its customers. To curb these rubberstamped mergers, former President Biden issued an executive order to encourage the Department of Justice and the banking agencies, including the OCC, to strengthen their merger reviews--get more information and find out what they intended to do and how they were going to provide more services. That is what President Biden tried to get done with the OCC, to get more information. Don't just rubberstamp them. Let them merge, and do all the things that I have just alluded to. After going through a public notice and comment process, the OCC, which oversees most large banks, including the four largest commercial banks in the country, published a final rule last year that made several commonsense improvements to its merger review procedures. First, it eliminated a fast-track procedure where even the largest bank mergers could receive automatic approval of their mergers 15 days after their public notice comment period closed. Second, the OCC required merger applicants to file the standard merger application to ensure they had enough information to weed out harmful mergers. Third, the rule provided guidance, something industry often asks for. Specifically, the OCC provided guidance on how they would consider statutory factors when reviewing an application, making the process more transparent. Rolling back these reforms is dangerous, especially at a time when DOGE is firing staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers. I guess Elon Musk didn't stop with all of the other agencies that they were undermining and firing and laying off. They decided that they would fire staff at the OCC and the other bank agencies, making it harder for them to carefully review these mergers. What Elon Musk was doing is consistent with what he has been doing and I guess what Trump wants him to do. They want less services. They want to make sure that they are supporting the biggest banks with these mergers, the biggest banks that are going to close down the community relationships that we have with community banks. Moreover, I do not know why Republicans rushed this bad resolution to the floor, bypassing a committee markup. That would have been prudent. As I would point out, this resolution is actually a giant waste of time, as it would rescind a rule that was already rescinded by the OCC. You heard me right. President Trump's Acting Comptroller of the Currency rescinded this very rule last week when it issued an interim final rule that took effect on May 15. I am not surprised that my Republican colleagues weren't paying attention to this development, or maybe they were. Maybe they think that it was something that Trump had said to Elon Musk: Go get it done, an executive order. Maybe they felt that this was one of those executive orders that would get ruled out by the courts when we absolutely oppose him. This resolution is only moving because Republicans needed to waste time while they hammer out how best to give $5 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires. They needed more time to figure out if tens of millions of Americans would lose Medicaid, whether millions of children would lose access to food stamps, and just how many consumer watchdogs they would fire at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It doesn't matter that the United States bond ratings were downgraded, that foreign investors are dumping U.S. investments, or that small businesses are struggling to keep their lights on. No, Republicans are instead rescinding a rule that Trump already rescinded. I tried to give them credit for why he might be doing this, but what they have done is they have just disregarded that it has already been done. They came over to waste some time, just to make sure that that executive order perhaps won't work. Much later tonight, when the rest of America is sleeping, Republicans are going to figure out just how many Americans they can squeeze to pay off their billionaire overlords. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad resolution being considered under the worst circumstances. I don't know why we are wasting time on this floor. I urge Members to reject this wasteful, harmful, anticompetition resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.