Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. In September of this year, the Biden administration negotiated an exchange with Iran for the release of five American citizens detained by Iran. In exchange, the Biden administration agreed to not block the transfer of the Trump-approved $6 billion in Iranian assets that were the proceeds of Iranian oil purchased by South Korea. Under the agreement, the funds would be transferred from a restricted account in South Korea to a restricted account in Qatar, where funds would be used exclusively for the purchase of humanitarian goods for Iranian citizens. The transfer did not authorize disbursement of funds, and the sanctioned Government of Iran has not and will not see a penny of that money. Moreover, Treasury has stated that the U.S. and Qatar have agreed to effectively block the funds for the foreseeable future. Contrary to Republican claims, it is not accurate to tie this $6 billion to Hamas' attack on October 7 because that attack was being planned for multiple years, likely beginning under the Trump administration. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, we received notice that the majority would be moving several Financial Services bills the very next day. This has put Members and staff in the difficult position of assessing and understanding multiple complex bills in a matter of hours in order to cast an informed vote. The justification for jamming these bills through so quickly is allegedly to respond to Iran's attack on Israel over the weekend. Instead of taking the time to work in a bipartisan manner on bills that would actually increase pressure on Iran, Republicans are politicizing this moment, pointing the finger at the Biden administration, and rushing to pass bills like this one that don't actually provide any real solutions. In response to Iran's latest attacks, they are just desperately trying to prove that they are doing something instead of taking the time to do something meaningful that actually has a chance to pass the Senate also. Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be doing everything possible to crack down on Iranian leaders and terrorists. Instead of debating legislation that will accomplish this shared goal, we are here debating legislation that will only make it harder for us to respond quickly to crises. Put simply, this bill would endanger our own national security and degrade our international standing. For these reasons, I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this important amendment which mandates the SEC report on the impact Silicon Valley Bank's collapse has had on local banks and small business lending. Our committee's previous examination of the 2023 banking crisis, while informative, should not be the end of the story. With the expertise of its talented and knowledgeable staff, the SEC can supplement our reporting and is sure to provide further valuable insight into what exactly happened and how regulators and lawmakers can avoid this from occurring again in the future. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, my amendment will provide needed transparency into the opaque world of private equity and venture capital funds, particularly around their investments in minority-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses. Today, these private funds play a big role in capital allocation, from mergers and acquisitions and non-bank lending, to restructurings and bankruptcies. As of 2021, private funds held more than $7 trillion in investments. Venture capital funds manage nearly $1.3 trillion, providing funding to startups and early-stage companies across the country. These are staggering numbers, but the amount going to minority-owned and women-owned businesses is not. For example, the White House earlier this month noted that Black-founded companies receive less than 1 percent of venture capital funding annually, while women-founded businesses receive just about 2 percent. When I was the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the first thing I did was to create a Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion. Our committee convened dozens of hearings on diversity and inclusion, receiving hundreds of hours of testimony that highlighted one overwhelming conclusion, which was the clear business case for supporting and investing in diversity. Study after study has found that diverse companies consistently outperform nondiverse companies despite being disproportionately undercapitalized. This is good for industry, good for business, and good for investors. Yet, limited access to financing is restricting the ability of women and businessowners of color to fulfill their potential, generate jobs, and contribute to their communities. Because private funds do not have the same transparency requirements as other large investors, it is difficult to gauge the number, size, and scope of their commitments to women-owned, diverse-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses. Moreover, following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, a number of private firms pledged to make advancements on racial and gender equity as part of their business strategy. Without accurate and timely information, investors and the public cannot hold these fund managers accountable. That is why my amendment is so important. If private funds want to take advantage of the ability to peddle their investments to the public, which is what this bill would permit, then at the very least, they need to show how they are investing in all of America. Madam Chair, I ask all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. My commonsense amendment would require private funds to disclose their investments in women-owned, minority-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses. For far too long, these well-performing, well-deserving businesses have been undercapitalized and underinvested in by wealthy firms that made empty promises when it was trendy to do so. We know that what gets measured and reported gets done. This amendment would provide the kind of transparency that investors, particularly public pension plans, want--to ensure they are investing in the most profitable parts of the economy. Madam Chair, I strongly urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, March 8, 2024, to celebrate International Women's Day. Thirty years ago, in 1994, at the suggestion of my friend Beata Pozniak, who is with us here today, I introduced H.J. Res. 316 in the House of Representatives to have Congress designate March 8 as International Women's Day. In this year 2024, International Women's Day has special importance. Today, as women's rights are under attack, we rededicate ourselves to fight for gender equality, reproductive rights, pay equity, maternal health, and preventing violence against women. The United Nations has selected the theme ``Inspire Inclusion'' for International Women's Day in 2024. Here in the House of Representatives, let us inspire women's inclusion and honor women in the United States and around the world.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, in less than 12 hours, President Biden will deliver his State of the Union Address and lay out his top policy priorities for our Nation. Last week, I sent the White House a request that the national affordable housing and homelessness crisis be included as part of the State of the Union Address, and I was very pleased to hear this morning that housing will, in fact, be included in the address. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a special guest. All the people of this country are my special guests today. I am speaking to them about this critical issue of housing and the need to take the people off the street. Unfortunately, the homeless on the street and in tents and broken- down RVs will not hear this message tonight, but they expect their Members of Congress that they elect to office to speak up for them. I speak for them, fight for them, and expect everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to fight for the people in America who are homeless and who are looking for better and decent housing. While the Biden administration has helped our Nation achieve one of the strongest labor markets with record job creation and a record number of businesses forming, we simply cannot talk about the state of our Union without talking about the state of housing in this country. Housing is a critical part of every person's well-being, the largest part of family budgets, and a major part of our economy. Yet, rising housing costs continue to make up nearly 70 percent of core inflation, outpacing modest wage gains. To put it in plainer terms: Americans are making more money, but housing costs are so extreme that the extra money in their pockets still isn't enough. Indeed, more renters and homeowners are paying a greater share of their income on housing than ever before. Since 2020, home prices have skyrocketed by 47 percent. Rents have increased by 40 percent during that same timeframe. It is no wonder that families in nearly every income bracket are feeling the pain of one of the worst housing and homelessness crises in our Nation's history. Today, a record 653,100 people are experiencing homelessness nationwide as we saw a sobering 25 percent spike in the number of people who are experiencing homelessness for the first time in their lives, between 2022 and 2023. I am talking about people we call our neighbors, family members, students, teachers, and frontline workers. Elderly Americans, who should be enjoying retirement, are one of the fastest rising groups of people experiencing homelessness. This is simply unacceptable. While the state of our Nation's housing is bleak right now, this doesn't have to be our future. We know how to solve the housing crisis. During the pandemic, Democrats secured unprecedented levels of housing relief through bills like the American Rescue Plan Act, which promoted equitable economic recovery, spurred more development of affordable housing, and helped nearly 3 million people experiencing the risk of homelessness. Over 12 million people successfully avoided eviction or foreclosure thanks to these investments. In short, Democrats proved what we can accomplish with substantial, targeted investments in housing, and we should use this as a blueprint to finally end this crisis. During this Congress, however, people on the opposite side of the aisle, the Republicans, have tried to defund Federal housing programs and even passed a bill to make homeownership more, not less, expensive. As the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, I commit to press the fight in Congress to secure robust investments in fair and affordable housing. I have introduced my groundbreaking housing bills, again, including the Housing Crisis Response Act, the Ending Homelessness Act, and the Down Payment Toward Equity Act. These bills would help create nearly 1.4 million affordable, accessible, and resilient homes and reduce housing costs, end homelessness, and revive the dream of homeownership for all. I am looking forward to hearing President Biden's State of the Union Address, and I hope that housing is highlighted as a major policy and not just a passing mention. Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear a lot about housing. I am not going to give up on housing. I am going to speak to every Member of Congress about voting for housing to end this crisis.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2799, a bill that would cause significant long-term harm to both small businesses trying to raise money and mom-and-pop investors trying to save for their retirements. A primary reason our capital markets are the envy of the world is because investors have confidence in the financial products that they are investing in. That confidence is hard won to be sure. It is the result of a robust disclosure regime that has been in place for decades and requires public companies to transparently and accurately tell investors about the inner workings of their businesses, their financials, and the risk involved with purchasing their shares. Investor confidence is also rooted in strong legal protections for investors and their right to have a say in the company's direction through the proxy process. And importantly, investor confidence is based on having a strong enforcer, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, that sets clear rules of the road, and keeps fraudsters out of the system. While our capital markets are far from perfect, trillions of dollars are invested every year because investors are confident that they won't be ripped off. Unfortunately, the bill before us today threatens to undermine that investor confidence. First, H.R. 2799 would expand the number of companies that are able to offer securities without needing to register with the SEC or provide critical disclosures to ordinary investors. This expansion will only benefit moderate to large companies rather than the small businesses this act purports to help. By exempting more companies from public SEC registration requirements, this bill expands the size of the private securities markets, which are growing rapidly and already outnumber the public securities markets 2-1. Second, this bill makes it easier for financial middlemen to peddle opaque, illiquid, and high-risk private securities to retail investors who won't receive the information they need to make informed investment decisions. This isn't democratizing finance or creating investment opportunities; this is Wall Street creating another target to dump its bottom-of-the-barrel investment products onto retail investors. Private securities, compared to public securities, are significantly more risky and more volatile, less transparent, harder to cash out, and have fewer legal protections. The bottom-of-the-barrel private securities that will be sold to retail investors as a result of this bill are especially dangerous because they will only be offered to retail investors after private equity and venture capital funds have already passed on them. It is important to notice that 90 percent of startups fail and private equity would love to dump these stocks on your constituents. Third, H.R. 2799 undermines the ability of State securities regulators to help small businesses raise capital and stop fraudsters. State securities regulators are on the front line of our capital markets, investigating complaints of investor fraud, enforcing State securities laws, educating investors about their rights, and helping small businesses raise money to fund their goals and comply with the law. We should not preempt States by blocking these important overseers from doing their jobs. To summarize, H.R. 2799 is a Wall Street wish list that collectively exempts big corporations and investment funds from transparency and accountability while gutting critical legal safeguards for Main Street investors. By weakening investor protections in numerous ways, this bill would allow fraud to proliferate and retirees and other mom-and- pop investors to be ripped off by bad actors. This bill would ultimately harm confidence in our capital markets while doing nothing to assist the very small businesses the bill purports to help. In fact, as investors lose confidence in our markets, small businesses will see their capital costs rise, not fall. I want to thoroughly debunk the notion that this bill somehow helps small businesses because the truth is that it would do just the opposite. I am very supportive of small businesses. In fact, I have worked extensively this Congress with Chair McHenry on bipartisan ways that we can help small businesses raise capital. We have worked together to strengthen crowdfunding and to change the rules on accredited investors. There are several policy solutions that we have agreed on that represent targeted ways to increase capital formation without harming investor protection. In fact, we worked together to pass 13 bills last year that represent bipartisan, commonsense reforms that support small businesses, enabling those who are knowledgeable about the risks of private securities to make informed investments, while ensuring robust investor protections. Most of these bills also passed under suspension on the House floor, so there is a bipartisan way forward on this issue, but instead of working with Democrats to get these bipartisan bills to the President's desk, Republicans have packaged together this toxic combination of partisan bills and are focusing their time and energy here. Mr. Chair, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to oppose this bill at a markup last April. I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously reject it on the floor today. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, 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. Chair, the following organizations oppose this bill: the North American Securities Administrators Association, Consumer Federation of America, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Communications Workers of America, SEIU, Steelworkers, Transport Workers Union of America, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, Center for American Progress, and Main Street Alliance. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's be clear. This Wall Street wish list bill is going nowhere in the Senate, but we have several bipartisan bills that support small businesses and retail investors that actually have a chance of getting into law. Chair McHenry and I have worked together for several years on legislation to strengthen our capital markets, going back to the JOBS Act and our efforts on crowdfunding and legislation to support angel investors. In fact, this Congress, we worked extensively together on 13 bipartisan bills, including my bill, H.R. 2796, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act, which requires the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital- raising options for underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas and to meet annually with representatives of State securities commissions; Mr. Meeks' bill, H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act, which requires an issuer with the multi-class share structure to disclose certain information regarding the voting power of specified persons; Mr. Himes' bill, H.R. 2812, the Middle Market IPO Underwriting Cost Act, which requires the SEC to study the costs encountered by small- and medium-sized companies when undertaking initial public offerings and certain offerings exempt from securities registration requirements; and Mr. Gottheimer's bill, H.R. 2593, the Senior Security Act, which establishes a senior investor task force within the SEC. The task force must report on topics relating to investors over the age of 65 and make recommendations for actions to address problems encountered by senior investors. Committee Democrats also supported several more Republican bills that help promote capital formation. We could have worked together to get these all included in the NDAA, but Chair McHenry knows why that didn't happen--Republicans blocked all of these bills from being added. Today, Republicans are pivoting to a completely partisan approach to the issue with this bill. This is par for the course with extreme MAGA Republicans who prefer to pander to their base instead of actually getting things done. When Republicans are done wasting their time on this extreme MAGA bill, Democrats will be ready to get to work on solutions that actually have a chance of making a difference for small businesses and retail investors. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, in all my years in Congress, this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen of a Wall Street wish list masquerading as a lifeline for small businesses and ordinary investors. Let me be clear. This bill does nothing to help small businesses. It only helps big business avoid transparency and accountability, and that is why the Biden administration opposes this bill. This bill does nothing to help ordinary investors. It only helps make it easier for investors to be duped by conflicted middlemen into purchasing some of the riskiest securities out there. Under this bill, these middlemen will have free rein to mask critical details about investment risk and target elderly people and others with what they claim is a great investment opportunity that will help them build wealth but, in reality, is a fraud. For example, these middlemen will be able to take the failing businesses off private equity balance sheets and offload them onto Main Street investors. This bill also hinders small businesses' ability to raise money by preempting State law and preventing State securities regulators from doing their job. Mr. Chair, we see this bill for what it is: a Wall Street wish list that throws Main Street investors under the bus. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for Main Street, not Wall Street, by voting ``no'' on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, what Mr. Lawler doesn't recognize is that the underlying bill makes the accredited investor definition meaningless. All you have to do is check a box, and poof, able to invest. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment sponsored by Mr. Lawler codifies a controversial Trump-era SEC rule that is opposed by many investor advocates. The amendment allows high-risk startups to tout their businesses in front of retail investors. This is currently prohibited in part because roughly 75 percent of VC-backed startups fail. The amendment would specifically allow angel investors and issuers to market their startup ventures to prospective investors at colleges and nonprofits, including churches. Broadly marketing your securities to the public in this fashion-- known as a general solicitation--is usually prohibited for private offerings like these because the public nature of the market effectively makes the offering itself public, and therefore, requires registration with the SEC. At universities and churches, students and congregants gather to learn, and they generally trust the information they receive. I don't believe these are spaces where it is appropriate to market highly risky investment opportunities. In my own district, a church was the victim of an investment scheme in which an issuer conned the church out of nearly $6 million. I previously offered an amendment during our committee's markup last year that would prevent future frauds like this from happening again--frauds that would be further enabled by this amendment. As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Lawler's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Simply put, this amendment allows failure-prone startups to market their private offerings to unaccredited investors who do not fully understand the risks involved. Colleges and churches are not the place startups should be raising money, and in general, we should not make it easier for them to push their risky private securities on unsuspecting retail investors, as this provision does. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment ignores the reality that many investors, particularly seniors, do not have access to or the ability to review electronic documents or simply do not prefer electronic delivery of financial documents. It would require investors to opt in to receive paper documents, which would effectively prevent individuals who do not have easy access to the internet from viewing important financial documents about the securities they invest in. Several major investor advocate groups strongly oppose this bill, including the AARP, the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, and Public Citizen, to name a few. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The name of this amendment, Improving Disclosure for Investors, is an oxymoron. It does absolutely nothing to improve disclosure for investors. Rather, by forcing them to opt in to paper filings, it would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for many investors to see what fees they pay for their funds, brokerage accounts, and retirement savings. Instead of having easy, instant access via paper copies, they would need to go online to search for that information. This amendment is more appropriately called the improving Wall Street profits at the expense of retail investors act. I strongly urge my colleagues to protect elderly investors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.