Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members, I have long been an advocate of consumer protections and consumer rights. And I'm proud of the work we accomplished in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Madam Chairman, and Members, I didn't get elected to the Congress of the United States of America to protect big banks, banks too big to fail, or to protect their shoddy products, criminal schemes that are designed to rip off innocent citizens who go to work every day. I don't know how anybody can come to this floor and represent that the consumers, the workers, the people of this country, don't need any protection. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed because it is very clear that our current regulatory framework inadequately protects consumers. Just look at the wrongful foreclosures on our veterans which was exposed by reporters last month and was the subject of a Veterans Affairs hearing last week. You go tell those veterans that they didn't need that protection, that they shouldn't be protected. The proliferation of harmful financial products and practices went unchecked because our banking regulators were tasked with both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. And we've seen that the pro-bank, anti-consumer stance won every time. That's why we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to make sure that the consumer voices aren't shouted down by the industries, and that an independent agency is beholden to the consumers and not the CEOs of the big financial institutions. Opponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claim we don't need this agency, they say, because the other banking regulators are already charged with consumer protection. This argument doesn't hold water because there are several types of consumer financial products which, because they were offered by nonbanks, fall into what may be classified as the shadow banking industry. These products and institutions escape Federal regulation, yet often lead to Federal problems such as our current economic foreclosure crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would bring nonbanks that offer financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory system. Another reason the CFPB is needed is to protect consumers from complicated products and hidden predatory fees. According to Elizabeth Warren, who is a special adviser to the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the average credit card offer now comes bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. Buried within this fine print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates, and penalties. This fine print makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make informed decisions and pick the credit card or other lending product which is right for them. This leads some borrowers to be trapped in credit cards or loan products with hidden and abusive fees. The CFPB would resolve this problem by working with the industry to reduce the fine print and hidden fees. We also need CFPB to provide stability to our financial markets, which is supported by consumer lending. Our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products, which are known as no doc loans and liar loans. It was exacerbated as consumers were continually squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank products, reducing purchasing power, and leading families everywhere to make tough decisions. A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and championed simpler disclosure and product, could have prevented all of this. We need CFPB. This kind of crisis should never occur again. Amendments to defund CFPB or to prevent it from doing its work will only hurt American consumers and, in turn, our economy. So I urge a ``no'' vote on these amendments. Madam Chair and Members, I don't know how any elected any official could go home and talk to their constituents and tell them they want to limit the funding to the SEC, the cop on the Wall Street block to protect investors, and then add to it, ``and I don't want you to have any consumer protection.'' We don't like what has been done. We're against these kinds of regulations. It is baffling. It is not to be understood, and I believe that in the final analysis this body will do the right thing.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Kline-Foxx-Hastings-McCarthy amendment that would stop the Department of Education's proposed gainful employment regulation. Proprietary colleges account for only 7 percent of the higher education student population; yet last year 44 percent of student loan borrowers who defaulted within 2 years of beginning their repayment were students who had attended for-profit schools. Mr. Chairman, I know something about these private postsecondary schools. One could make the argument, and you will hear, oh, not all of the schools. Of course, not 100 percent of the schools are ripoff schools, but a huge majority of them are. I have experienced some of this firsthand. While I was working with poor students in South Los Angeles, we were trying to get them into GED classes. The recruiters would come along and tell them that they could get them into their schools, they could help them to get Pell Grants, and they could help them get a career, and, lo and behold, they would sign up. You would see them a few days later, some were going to be dental assistants and they had a little green jacket on and they had a little box that they carried to make it look as if they were carrying dental tools. But it was just a matter of months later when you would find sometimes the school was out of business. They had been going to school, there were no teachers, there was no equipment. They were ripoff schools. And I want to tell you, they make a lot of money. Take a look at this one school, Capella. They earned $335 million in profits; 78 percent of that was government money. Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will have you believe they want to save the government money. They want to make sure that they do everything to protect the government from spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. Something is wrong with this picture when they take the floor and argue for the continued ripoff of our students and our taxpayer money to these schools. Let me tell you who some of them are. Corinthian, bad reputation; Everest, ITT, Westwood. And, guess what? Kaplan University. Guess who owns Kaplan? The Washington Post. Do you think The Washington Post makes most of its money from the newspaper? You got another thought coming. Their profits and their revenue for the most part is coming from Kaplan University, which has been found to have done all kinds of things to get these students in, charging them higher prices for these classes. They are not getting jobs, they don't get a career, and they end up not only owing the government money, but they are prevented from having a decent quality of life because now they can't get a section 8, they can't get another Pell Grant, and, you know what? In many States they are going after Social Security money and retirement money. This is the next big scandal in America. You think that the meltdown that we just had and the foreclosures that we are experiencing across this country are bad. You wait until the investigations are done and the truth is told and the amount of money is counted from the ripoffs. Now, I know that this is a powerful lobby that I am working against. I understand that. They roam these Halls, and they have plenty of resources, and they put out plenty of materials. They buy full-page ads. They are up on television, the Joe Blow School of Computer Learning that has no school. I want to tell you, I understand how tough this is. But what I don't understand is how they could be joined by people who claim to care about the taxpayers' money and claim that they are fighting to reduce government, when in fact they are supporting the ripoff schools that are increasing the amount of Pell Grants that we give to schools, who will not get any jobs or create any careers. This is not right. We should not have to suffer this kind of misrepresentation. Members of this House should be in support of students who want to learn. The worst thing that can happen to students who drop out of school, to students who haven't made it, to all of a sudden think that somehow they are going to get a job and get into one of these ripoff schools and get disappointed time and time again. I know what populations they are targeting. I see them. They are targeting the welfare mothers. They are targeting gang-bangers. They are targeting all kinds of people that they know are going to have a difficult time succeeding. So you keep doing this, it is going to catch up with you. I ask that this amendment not be supported.

Ms. WATERS. I rise to support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment. I would like to thank them for bringing this amendment to the floor. I would like to thank all of them and the other Progressives in this House for the work that has been done in an attempt to make sense out of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and for all of the traveling, the speeches, and the organizing that has been done around this war issue. Mr. Chairman, we continue to fight to bring our troops home. I know that there are those who would think that perhaps because they have not heard a lot from us that somehow we had removed ourselves from the struggle, but that is certainly not true. We have been respectful. We have allowed this administration to make some commitments. The American people decided to give the administration the opportunity to work to bring our troops home, and we are still committed to that. This CR would provide $100 billion for military operations in Afghanistan. That doesn't sound as if we are trying to wind down. That doesn't sound as if we are ready to recognize that it is time to get out of Afghanistan. Why are we there? Unfortunately, this war has been very traumatic on our soldiers, on their families, and on the American public. Yes, as has been said over and over again, we salute our soldiers. We appreciate the sacrifices that they have made--and have they made sacrifices. There have been more suicides in this war and in the Iraq war than we have had in all of the wars of the United States of America. It breaks my heart to hear about the brain injuries and the loss of limbs that these soldiers have suffered. Why is this happening? What are we doing? Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, says there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. That is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative. Again, let me reiterate: the CIA tells us there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. At the rate that we're going with the CR providing $100 billion for military operations, that is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative. Our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in Afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of forces. As we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the CR, I cannot help but contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is being cut and cut and cut, not only by this CR but by the budgets, both from the opposite side of the aisle and from the White House. The homelessness is shameful in America. We have people who are wondering how they're going to keep their homes warm. We are cutting heating oil in America. The environment is taking a licking in this CR. At the same time that we talk about innovation and creating jobs, I don't see anything in this CR that will create any jobs. What I see are unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing with the $100 billion. What I see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated commitment to getting rid of regulations that can save us money and create jobs. So, led by the Progressives, we stand strong in our commitment that this war must end. We must bring our soldiers home. It is time for us to concentrate on the domestic agenda. There are those who would tell us we are training the military in Afghanistan, that we are going to have Afghanistan soldiers who will be ready to take over. I don't see that happening. What is ``win''? What is ``success''? How do you define it? I haven't found anybody on the opposite side of the aisle who can define that. I would say it is time for us to have the courage to do what must be done. Let's support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The majority's continuing resolution cuts funding to the SEC by $188 billion. Such a cut would leave our financial markets, including the derivatives market, unpoliced and effectively unregulated. In effect, the continuing resolution would take the Wall Street cop--its only cop--off the beat. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will prevent another financial crisis like the one that crippled credit markets in 2008 by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisers and broker-dealers, and rein in credit rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding. I am a little bit surprised that the gentlelady from Missouri talks about punishing the agency and making them understand. No, this is about accepting responsibility and helping to protect the average investor. We have people who lost all of their savings in their 401(k)s with the meltdown, and now we're talking about not funding the very agency that has the responsibility for protecting the investors? I don't think so. Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. If this cut becomes law, the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its information technology budget down to $86 million, it's lowest level of information technology spending since 2003. At this level, the SEC would not be able to implement the new system it needs to protect the Nation's security markets. From 2005 to 2007, during the period up to the crisis that imploded in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined 50 percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled. The number of investment advisers has increased by 50 percent and the funds they manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including 11,450 investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers, and more than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that trade, on average, 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day. What does this mean for the average investor? Without adequate funding, the SEC won't be able to do its job, as simple as that, of protecting the average investor. As financial markets and investors become more and more complex, the average investor has confidence in making an investment because he or she knows that there is a system in place to protect them. This continuing resolution will undermine that system. We've all heard of Bernie Madoff and the massive multiyear fraud he perpetrated on thousands of investors. Bernie Madoff was just one man. Imagine a world in which there are hundreds of Bernie Madoffs who prey unchecked on investors. That's the world we will be in if the majority's cut for the SEC becomes law. So, Mr. Chairman and Members, if we want to create jobs and spur investment in our economy, we must fully fund the SEC. I don't see how anyone can make a rational argument that the SEC should be level funded or underfunded when we know that that's the only police on the beat to protect our investors and ensure that people who have invested in their retirement won't have to go back to work at 65 and 70 and 75 years old. That's what happened when we had this meltdown. And so now we know what happened. We have good management over there. We have people who understand what they need. They have come to people who have been elected and sent to Congress to do a job. That job is to look out for the average person, the average American. All of our constituents are not interested in punishing the SEC. They want to make it work. And I submit to you that this amendment is important to help make it work. Do not follow the lead of the people on the opposite side of the aisle who would endanger all of us and all of our investors.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise to address what I consider very serious problems with this continuing resolution and this defense budget and the lack of attention to jobs. I am going to talk about something that's quite unpopular. We all know that we have 9 percent unemployment in this country, which is significant. We all know that communities all over America are suffering, not simply rural communities, not simply suburban areas, not simply inner cities. But people are hurting, having lost their jobs, all over America. In some communities, it's not 9 percent, it's not 10 percent, it's not even 15 or 20 percent. We have communities in America where there is 30 and 40 percent unemployment. There are those who would like to say, well, that's in those urban areas. No, it is not simply in urban areas. We have poor rural communities that have Representatives who come here every day talking about they are representing them, when in fact they never speak to the needs of those communities. They don't talk about the lack of health care that people have had to endure for so many years, the inability for people in these rural communities to access clinics. Some of us are fighting for all people, not only the cities and the towns, but these rural areas that are being hurt so badly. Now, it is not popular to even use the word ``poor.'' As a matter of fact, you hear over and over again about concerns for the middle class. Of course, we are all concerned for the middle class. But who represents the poor people in America these days? There are some of us who do, and proudly so, and we are referred to as ``big spenders.'' Tax and spend, they say. And they don't talk about the poverty in their own community. But let me just tell you, with this continuing resolution the CDBG, Community Development Block Grant, money is going to hurt all of these communities across America. Many of these Representatives who support cutting CDBG from $4.45 billion down to $1.5 billion are going to hurt their cities. Their mayors are absolutely going nuts about what is happening with the cutting of CDBG, the last block grant funding that they can depend on to assist with economic development that helps to create jobs in America. You hear a lot about that we care about jobs. Well, we know what people care about jobs based on where they place their priorities. My friends are cutting in areas where we could be creating jobs and have demonstrated that they have zero bills to create jobs. The mindless cuts that they are proposing means 1 million job cuts: no jobs for nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, manufacturing, small businesses. We need to put America back to work, and we can do this if we are sensible, if we are targeting the cuts in areas that can take it. Why are we spending the amount that we are spending on the military budget and defense budget when we have those who are telling us--for example, Secretary Gates announced his intention to terminate the expeditionary fighting vehicle program and the surface launch medium- range air-to-air missile system. Why are we trying to disregard what we have been told by the very people who understand this defense budget better than anybody else? No, we want to continue to fund a budget that doesn't need any funding, not talking about how we reduce and eliminate the funding for Afghanistan and bring our soldiers home and put that money into our own domestic needs. We are talking about somehow cutting in ways that they would have people believe that they are helping them when in fact they are hurting them. This continuing resolution does nothing for strengthening the economy. It does nothing for creating jobs. It does nothing for support of those cities who are fighting desperately to hold on to opportunities for people who have nowhere else to turn. Not only do we have the cuts in areas that would create jobs, but also many of these areas are faced with foreclosures.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am extremely concerned about the impact of the Republicans' continuing resolution on the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to police our capital markets, thereby preventing another financial crisis. To be clear, the Republican continuing resolution, with its $100 billion in proposed cuts, is an assault on job creation, vulnerable populations and our communities. However, it is also an assault on our financial markets. If the Securities and Exchange Commission is level- funded or funded at 2008 levels, we risk defunding the main agency with oversight over the risky financial products that started the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC is supposed to be our Wall Street cop. It is supposed to make sure that the brokerage firms are obeying the law. It is supposed to protect the investors. It is supposed to make sure that those people who work every day having their money invested by institutional investments like the pension funds are not losing their investments in their 401(k)s. Let's talk about what happened in 2008. In 2008, our financial markets collapsed. In 2008, it was clear that the SEC didn't have the tools or the resources it needed to monitor or police those markets. So, frankly, I don't understand why Republicans would want to underfund the SEC with the same amount of funding it received in the year that it lacked the resources to monitor financial markets that were spinning out of control. From 2005 to 2007, during the buildup to the crisis that imploded in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined by 50 percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled, the number of investment advisers has increased by 50 percent, and the funds they manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion. Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee 35,000 entities--including 11,450 investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker dealers, and more than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that trade on average 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day. The Dodd-Frank Act will prevent the next crisis by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisers and broker dealers, and rein in credit rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding. The Securities and Exchange Commission that is our Wall Street cop to protect us all needs additional funding. Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. Why? If funded at fiscal year 2008 levels, the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its IT budget down to $86 million, its lowest level of IT spending since 2003. At this level, the SEC would not be able to implement the new systems it needs to protect the Nation's securities markets. We have all said to the public in so many ways, and certainly through Dodd-Frank, that we are going to change the way the SEC has been working; we are going to make sure we have some protections for consumers and investors. Yet we know it can't be done without the resources, without the money. You can tell where your priorities are based on where you put your funding. This attack on the SEC is more disturbing because the agency's funding will be deficit-neutral. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, fees collected by the SEC will match its congressional appropriation. The critical role that the SEC plays in our Nation's financial markets is precisely why Wall Street, the very entity that the SEC regulates, is asking for Congress to fully fund this agency. According to a February 7 article in The New York Times, 41 prominent securities lawyers and professionals have already written to Congress to ask for full funding for the agency. Why do we have to beg for funding for the SEC if we are truly about the business of protecting our consumers? Mr. Speaker, the SEC needs a sufficient level of funding. If Wall Street's cop on the beat is unavailable, we risk another financial crisis and loss of more jobs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage my colleague, Mr. Himes, in a colloquy for the balance of our time. I appreciated the comments that you made just a few minutes ago, but you alluded to the length of time that we have organized the SEC and some protections and what happened, the kind of growth we had, but now things have changed somewhat and the oversight responsibility is a little bit more complicated and a little bit more difficult. What did you mean by that?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Ms. WATERS. We heard on several occasions here today the tremendous oversight responsibility given all of the capital markets that have to be monitored, that have to be regulated. What do we need to do to make the SEC stronger? We've gone through this meltdown. We've have gone through this crisis. The American people expect something to happen. What do they need in order to be good overseers, good cops?

Ms. WATERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), who also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

Ms. WATERS. I want to ask you, is it true that the average investor-- I'm not just talking about the big institutional investors, but the average investor understands the complication of this? Do they expect that we understand it and we're going to regulate it, we're going to watch out for them? What does the average investor know about the system?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this afternoon to state our unequivocal stance against health care reform repeal. The landmark health reform law takes a stand against the health care disparities that exist for low-income Americans, people of color, and people with pre-existing conditions. Twenty percent of African-Americans were uninsured in the United States, and 32 percent of the Hispanic population was uninsured. Though African-American women are 10 percent less likely to get breast cancer than white women, we are 34 percent more likely to die from it. And Hispanic women are twice as likely to die from cervical cancer as White women. Both African-American and Mexican-American men are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease than White Americans. Hispanic men were one-and-a-half times as likely to die from diabetes as White Americans, and African-Americans were 2.2 times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to White Americans. Finally, though they comprise 15 percent of the U.S. population, Hispanics make up 17 percent of new HIV infections. And more shockingly, though we make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans are 45 percent of new HIV infections. Many Americans are suffering from a lack of access to health care because health insurance is simply unaffordable. This problem has existed for far too long in the most prosperous nation in the world. Meaningful health care must be available for all Americans regardless of race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing condition. That's why the health care reform law specifically addresses these disparities and other pre-existing conditions and makes it illegal to be denied health care insurance because of them. So I implore my Republican colleagues to work with us to strengthen the law, make it better, and provide health care and jobs to millions of Americans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the killing and wounding of members of her staff and community attending her ``Congress on your Corner'' event, was a national tragedy. It is most appropriate that we speak out to share our sadness, sorrow and grief as well as our hopes for healing and recovery. I am encouraged that Gabby continues to defy the odds and is showing signs of progress. She is truly a survivor, with a strong will to live. I know that she faces a long and difficult path to recover from her injuries, and I hope that our support--together with the prayers and well wishes offered by the people of Arizona and indeed all of America--will help her and her family now and in the weeks and months ahead. Even as she copes with her own severe injuries, I am sure that Gabby is thinking of all the others who were killed and injured during the attack on her. Gabe Zimmerman, her director of community outreach, was killed. Two more members of her Congressional staff, Ron Barber and Pam Simon, were injured in the shooting. Congressional staff members help us, to help our constituents, but they often are not recognized or appreciated. Let us all remember that our staffers--and government workers generally--are committed to public service. They work hard, make many sacrifices, and they provide valuable, essential service. We are thinking also of residents of the Tucson community who attended this event to meet and speak with their elected representative, never sensing that they would be in harm's way. Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, and Dorwan Stoddard were all killed in this senseless, brutal attack. I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to their families, friends and loved ones. In a matter of seconds, the gunman recklessly and viciously sprayed bullets in all directions. In addition to killing six people and wounding Congresswoman Giffords, he injured thirteen other people. We pray for their full and speedy recovery. In a democracy, it is not only common but moreover essential that citizens and their representatives freely communicate and exchange ideas, even opposing opinions. Unfortunately, violent events like the shooting in Tucson have a chilling effect on our ability to engage in our civic duties without fear. We must not give in to fear. At the same time, we absolutely must all do whatever is necessary to restore safety and security. We must rededicate ourselves to ending violence and promoting peace, and we must take necessary, commonsense steps to reduce the potential for killings like this.