Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Ms. WATERS. May I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I would like for us all to recognize that we are taking a step that we are constantly accused of not being able to do, and that is move something in a bipartisan fashion. I'm appreciative for my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who have been so cooperative, and I'm appreciative for the leadership that has been provided on this side of the aisle. But we still must remember that unemployment is unacceptably high. We must remember that we must have a comprehensive approach. We must remember that the President has presented us with a comprehensive, realistic approach by which we can stimulate this economy, create jobs, support education and our schools, and help the unemployed in ways that they are desperately waiting for. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself 1 minute. Continuing the comparison between the two efforts, as has been said over and over again today, we certainly have joined in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill. Even though I am not sure and some of our Members are not sure that everything that's in all of these bills is what we absolutely understand and we're willing to say we know that it will help, it will help to deal with this economy in ways that we want it to, but we are willing to take a chance. We're willing to try. Now, when you compare this with the President's comprehensive jobs bill, then you can see this is only one effort; and in comparison, it's a small effort in comparison to what the President has proposed. And so, let us not forget, we still have work to do. We still have to be concerned about the unacceptably high unemployment rate. As we speak today, the unemployment rate is still in excess of 8 percent.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. To the Members of this House and to those who are listening to this debate, you've heard this described as a jobs bill. In my earlier remarks, I, too, described this as a jobs bill. You've heard us talk about job creation, access to capital, ways by which we can support small businesses in general but IPOs in particular. You heard us talk about crowdfunding and creative means by which we can help to invigorate this economy. And so certainly this is a jobs bill. But then you heard some reference to the President's jobs bill by our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, who talked about a comprehensive approach. Make no mistake, this jobs bill is important, and I certainly hope that it will help to stimulate the economy in ways that all of us thought that it could. However, when you take a look at this compared to the President's comprehensive legislation, then you understand what Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about. Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about the President's comprehensive jobs bill that would do some very important things. It talked about job sharing. It will make sure that our teachers and our firefighters are kept on the job. It talks about school construction. It talks about aid to community college and comprehensive efforts to provide tax credits for small businesses. So, you see, we would like everybody to understand that we're not abandoning a comprehensive effort to do real job creation and access to capital and support for small businesses. We're trying to take every opportunity, every step, as it has been mentioned time and time again.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. To sum up this bill, it will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in our capital markets, enabling them to grow their businesses. But make no mistake, I believe that this Congress still needs to do more on jobs. In addition to these legislative changes that enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job; extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers; and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. A truly comprehensive approach is needed to get Americans working again, and I hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on these issues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Bachus, Chairman Garrett and, certainly, Ranking Member Frank for their assistance and support on this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee, passing many of the provisions in the bill with strong bipartisan majorities. H.R. 3606 is an omnibus package of small business capital formation bills, some of which we already passed through the House back in November. I was pleased to work with Representative McCarthy on a provision now included in the bill to amend securities law in order to remove the prohibition on general solicitation, or general advertising, for the Office of Securities made under rule 506 of regulation D if those securities are only sold to accredited investors. Last year, I worked with Representative McHenry to add critical investor protection provisions to this crowdfunding bill, which previously passed the House and is now included in this package. I was also pleased to support the provision from Representative Schweikert to allow companies to raise more funds through the Regulation A process and another provision to raise minimum shareholder thresholds at which companies must register their securities with the SEC. On the title of this bill, which deals with the emerging growth companies, the IPOs, I support the goal of this legislation, and I hope that many of the amendments offered today on this title are accepted, including my own, which is dealing with the provision of research. Again, I am supportive of this legislation, but I think that more investor protection provisions are needed. Why did we work together to get this legislation passed? We worked from both sides of the aisle because we are all concerned about job creation and access to capital. We have gone through a recession in this country, starting with the loans that were made in the subprime market in 2003 to 2007. We almost reached a depression, and we destroyed the housing industry in this country. So we are all working to try and not only get the housing industry revitalized, but we are also working to make sure that our small businesses have access to capital and, thus, job creation. I am very pleased that we were able to work together on this legislation despite the fact that what Mr. Frank brought to our attention today is the kind of effort that could interfere with attempts to have bipartisanship on some of these legislative attempts that we have made. What Congressman Frank brought to our attention was that title VI of the bill, a provision that was drafted by Representative Himes, with the support of Republicans, seems to have been bare minimally reworked and rebranded as a Representative Quayle bill. While I support the provision, I think that taking Mr. Himes' work product undermines the spirit of bipartisanship and the cooperation that was otherwise demonstrated by this bill. Do I like every one of these bills 100 percent? No, I don't. I have some concerns and I have some questions. I even have some uncertainty when we talk about crowdfunding. I want to make sure that we're protecting the investors. I want to make sure that the proper research is isolated from the underwriters who have connections to those people that they're writing the bills for.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I join with Mr. Capuano in saying that we don't normally agree with the Chamber of Commerce. As a matter of fact, this may be the first time that I've agreed with the Chamber of Commerce. But you have also the Council of Institutional Investors that is warning us about this research problem that we have unless we clear it up.

Ms. WATERS. I offer my amendment today in the spirit of improving the underlying bill in the area of investor protection with regard to the provisions of research provisions in title I. First, my amendment attempts to mitigate against potentially damaging conflicts of interest between the people who will profit from an emerging growth company's IPO and the people who write research about such IPOs. This amendment provides that if a broker or a dealer is underwriting an IPO and also providing research to the public about that IPO, those research reports need to be filed with the SEC and underwriters need to be held to stricter liability for their comments. Second, this amendment provides that if emerging growth companies are communicating orally or in writing with potential investors before or following an offering, they need to file those communications with the SEC. During the dot-com boom of the 2000s, it was uncovered that certain research analysts were recommending companies to the investing public because their firms had an economic interest in the firm's IPO, or wanting to get other businesses from the company. Meanwhile, those same analysts were telling their colleagues in internal emails that the company's IPOs were junk. Essentially, these analysts misled the investing public and didn't disclose their economic interest in hyping the company. Through a global settlement and related rules coming from the scandal, we cracked down on some of these conflicts of interest. My amendment, rather than letting these conflicts be restored, would require that if underwriters are also issuing reports about a company's IPOs, they need to file those with the SEC. Filing of materials subjects underwriters to more robust liability. Secondly, the filing of a pre- or post-offering communication with the SEC under this amendment will also hold companies to a higher level of legal liability, ensuring their communications accurately portrayed the nature of the offering. It also allows the SEC and the public to make sure that companies aren't inappropriately hyping their offering to investors. Today we received communications, both from the Chamber of Commerce and from the Council of Institutional Investors. The Council of Institutional Investors simply said, ``The Council membership supports the provisions of section 501 of Sarbanes-Oxley and the Global Research Analyst Settlement. Those provisions bolstered the transparency, independence, oversight, and accountability of research analysts,'' and similar comments from the Chamber of Commerce. I would urge support for my amendment and for the underlying bill. We must help our small businesses to access our capital markets, but we must also mitigate against conflicts of interest that would mislead investors. I believe my amendment strikes the right balance. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I appreciate your organizing the time for us to come to the floor and speak about our friend, Donald Payne. We are all so sad, and we are going to miss him, but we also know that the service that he gave to this country, even long before he came to the Congress of the United States, and the service that he has given to this country since being a Member of Congress, is unmatched by any Member of Congress. Donald Payne was a true servant who not only served his State of New Jersey, but Donald Payne was someone who took care of his district. When I take a look at all of the capacities that he served in in the State of New Jersey, I am just in awe, counting Democratic chairman, executive of the Prudential Insurance Company, vice president of Urban Data Systems, educating the New York and Passaic public school districts, a former national president of the YMCA, chairman of the World Refugee and Rehabilitation Committee--it goes on and on and on. And he brought with him to Congress the same attitude, the same commitment to service. Since his service in Congress, of course, he left us as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. He served as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus immediately prior to my being elected to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I learned a lot from his service about how to chair the Congressional Black Caucus. Don Payne was known for several things but certainly known and respected for his commitment to education, closing the achievement gap, making sure that we expand opportunities for the least of these with Pell Grants, making sure that he reduced the interest rates on some of the loans, the Stafford loans, for example. He was known because he understood that as a public policy maker he could influence education in this country, and he certainly did that. I also would like to point to his record of achievement serving as the chair of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he was the expert, unmatched. As a matter of fact, Donald Payne traveled to Africa, East Africa, West Africa, throughout his career, and he knew all of these countries on the continent, and he knew the leaders, past and present. As a matter of fact, Don didn't wait for a codel of a lot of people to be organized to go to a troubled spot. Don would get on the airplane by himself, a one-person codel, and travel, set up his own meetings with the leaders of those countries, talk with them about what was taking place in those countries and get such an understanding of what needed to be done. He coupled all of this with the history of the countries of Africa. Don was an educator, he was a teacher, he was a historian. So he knew a lot about the backgrounds of these countries because he had studied that. When he coupled that information with what was going on at the present time that he was visiting and working on issues in those countries, he made it all come together, and he helped us all to understand. He was our go-to person on Africa for sure. When we wanted to know what was going on--and some people who were not that involved in foreign affairs and in Africa, they just followed his vote. When they looked upon that panel, they looked at how Don Payne was voting, and then they followed his leadership. We are going to miss that leadership. We are going to miss this dedication. We are going to miss this mild-mannered man who loved his job, who loved his district. I'm always going to remember that he invited me to his district on several occasions. I went up with Don, I campaigned with him. I went about the community. He introduced me to the ministers, and he was well respected and loved in his district. Of course, we all know why, because he was dedicated to the district, and he did so much for the district. The district is going to miss Don Payne. It will be hard to match the work that he did and his success and his achievements. We're going to remember each time we're involved in some of the same issues that Don was involved in. We're going to ask ourselves, what would Don have done, and we're going to follow the thinking of Don Payne on those issues.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. This legislation will simply wipe out all of the credit-hour and State authorization program integrity rules. These rules are so important and crucial because this is what prevents the widespread rip- off, fraud, and abuse in this industry. H.R. 2117 would repeal the Department of Education's State authorization regulation, which gives States the ability to enforce their right to require that all colleges operating within their jurisdictions be authorized to do so. Without this State authorization rule, States have no way of knowing which colleges operate within their State unless they operate on physical campuses. The State authorization rule simply requires that, as a condition for a receipt of Federal aid, colleges verify that they have authorization from the States in which they operate and are in adherence to their State education laws. This legislation also aims to overturn the rule creating a sweeping Federal definition of credit hour. Currently, there is no common understanding of what colleges mean when they use the word ``credit.'' The most egregious result of this provision's repeal is the abuses of for-profit colleges, like the American Intercontinental University, who has been charged with inflating their credit hours to a point when they offered nine college credits for courses that were only 5 weeks long. The Federal definition of a credit hour is imperative to directly address colleges that have been inflating their credits to acquire more Federal student financial aid dollars. This rule will also help mitigate the widespread problems students face in transferring credits from one institution to another by articulating a more precise measure of educational concept attainment represented by credits a student earned.

Ms. WATERS. This program's integrity rules have been put in place to ensure that all students receive a fair shake in their quest to obtain a higher education. Instead of working against the Department of Education and Secretary Duncan, policymakers should be working with them to implement these rules in a sensible way, not trying to repeal them altogether. Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening with private postsecondary schools is the next biggest scandal. You think the subprime meltdown was big, when American taxpayers find out how much of their tax dollars are being ripped off by these private postsecondary schools who have a Joe Blow school for computer learning with no computers, teachers who are not accredited, credit hours that are distorted, and students who don't get trained, don't get education, can't transfer anything, and end up with a lot of debt, I ask you to please reject this legislation. I have the greatest respect for the legislator who's introduced this, but this is wrong. This is a rip-off, and we should be against it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Conyers, I want to thank you for not only granting me this time but for being my friend for many years. It is odd for me to be on the opposite side of you. This may be the first time, certainly, in my career that we have ever disagreed on anything. Mr. Sensenbrenner is correct in that this will be the only time we will probably come together around an issue, but we've been together on this one for a long time. With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012. This legislation on which I joined with Representative Sensenbrenner will restore the property rights of all Americans and prevent the Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government from using economic development as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain. Economic development condemnations have all too often been used by powerful interest groups to acquire land at the expense of the poor and politically weak. As the dissent in the Kelo case pointed out: To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings ``for public use'' is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued ``the burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly and economically disadvantaged.'' Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a ``license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests.'' The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011 will discourage eminent domain abuse by denying local governments that take private property for economic development access to Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years. One of the basic constitutional functions of American government is the protection of private property rights. H.R. 1433 will protect homes, communities, churches, and other privately owned property from predatory takers under the guise of ``economic development.'' Private developers and local governments that have a genuine project should be able to acquire the land or property they need through legitimate, voluntary purchases. If the project really is more valuable than the current use of the same land, then they should be willing to negotiate with property owners who are willing to sell. Eminent domain abuse impacts both urban and rural communities, and it is past time that Congress acted affirmatively to protect the private property rights of all Americans, who all too often are not evenly matched to challenge private companies in lengthy litigation. Where the Supreme Court created ambiguity with its Kelo ruling, Congress must be clear: There should never be a legal question concerning the rights individuals have to be secure in their homes and communities. With that, let me just wrap this up by saying I have been engaged for the past several years with the subprime meltdown in this country that caused so many families to be in foreclosure, and I have been engaged on that subject because I consider the home the most precious asset, the most precious possession that any American can have. And so whether it's trying to protect people who got involved in mortgages that they did not understand, mortgages where they were suckered into signing on the dotted line because we had exotic products that had been put into the marketplace which caused them to lose that home, or whether it is the pure question of eminent domain, property ownership is the basis of our American government and protected, should be always, by the Constitution and the Members who are elected to come to Congress to uphold the Constitution and protect our citizens. And so today I join with Congressman Sensenbrenner and others on the opposite side of the aisle in ways that I don't normally do, and probably won't have the opportunity to do for a long time to come, but today is important. We join together in the interest of American citizens who simply want to be able to own their home without their government intervening in their lives and taking their property and saying they are doing it in the name of economic development.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. As the Member of Congress who represents Los Angeles International Airport, also known as LAX, I know we need a multiyear FAA reauthorization. LAX is the world's sixth busiest airport. LAX creates an estimated 59,000 jobs in or near the airport and has a total annual economic impact estimated at $60 billion. In 2008, 60 million passengers and 1.8 million tons of freight and mail passed through LAX. All of this economic activity depends upon the FAA and the work that it does every day to guarantee a safe and efficient air travel system. My district also includes the Western- Pacific Regional Office of the FAA in Hawthorne, California, where dedicated FAA engineers and program managers plan improvements of airport operations. I'm extremely disappointed that this bill contains changes to labor laws affecting the dedicated workers at our Nation's airlines and railroads. This labor provision increases the percentage of employees who must express interest in having an election regarding union representation from 35 percent to 50 percent. This provision was included without consultation of the workers who will be affected and without a vote on the House floor. It is unfortunate and divisive, and there is no reason for it to be in this bill. Last August, the FAA was forced to shut down many of its operations because the House of Representatives refused to pass a simple bill to extend its funding reauthorization. As a result, 4,000 FAA employees were placed on furlough. Those affected included many of the FAA's engineers, scientists, research analysts, administrative assistants, computer specialists, program managers, environmental protection specialists, and community planners. These government workers were being forced to live without pay for 13 days and were unable to do their jobs developing our air traffic infrastructure and serving the flying public. I would like to support this bill, but this is problematic; and I reserve my comments further on this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Ms. WATERS. And so when you include liquor stores, all you're doing is attacking some small businesses who are providing foodstuffs--not just liquor, but foodstuffs; not only in inner cities, but in rural communities--that families need. So this is punishment, this is being very harsh on the most vulnerable people in our society to include liquor stores in this group of stores that you would not like to have the welfare recipients use. Again, I could go along with strip joints; I could go along with casinos. But as I travel across the country, I cannot go along with excluding liquor stores from being able to provide food that's needed to these poor families that live in these food deserts where there are no grocery stores, no chains, no other place for them. And when they have transportation problems, it really does wreak havoc on them trying to get even to a place where they could buy food. So if you would understand that and work to try to make sure that this doesn't stay in here, I would appreciate it.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. WATERS. It is very helpful. With the liquor stores, they help to stimulate the economy. They sell all of these foodstuffs. They hire a few people. Some families have three and four family members. So, yes, I would ask that you exclude liquor stores from this consideration.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, I came to the floor to address this issue. Despite the fact that I understand that it's kind of a good political issue in an election year where many people will use this to say I'm saving the government money and I'm keeping those folks on welfare who don't deserve government support anyway from using this money or this EBT card to have access in ways that will allow them to be in and take advantage of casinos and strip joints, et cetera, and it's a very sexy argument and it looks good and you'll get a lot of play off of it, so I understand that coming to the floor to protect the poor and the most vulnerable is not popular, but think about it, just think about it. Many of you come from districts where there are liquor stores. These are small businesses, and most of these liquor stores now serve more other products than they do liquor. They have milk; they have juice; they have bread; they have meats. They have the kinds of things that many of these poor families need and they buy at liquor stores. Why do they buy them at liquor stores? Because they're in these food deserts that you have heard the First Lady talk about, areas all over this country, whether it is rural or whether it is urban, where they don't have grocery stores. They don't have the big chains. All they have are these small business that are liquor stores who carry all of the products that a family could use to feed their family, not just liquor. And so I would ask you to take a real close look at this and at least exclude the liquor stores. These small businesses are very important all over this country. Yes, they sell liquor. Many of us don't like the idea that even in some of these places there are problems, but the folks who go there don't have to buy liquor. If there are problems at any of these liquor stores, local law enforcement should do its job.

Ms. WATERS. There's some confusion about what is excluded or included. As I understand it, a liquor store that just sells just juice or milk would not be considered a store that sells food. Is that correct? Is that your understanding? I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.