Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7438, the FIFA World Cup 2026 Commemorative Coin Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have this opportunity to celebrate the FIFA World Cup 2026 through this commemorative coin bill, as it will be the first time the men's World Cup has been held in the United States in 32 years. I am also proud this event will be held in part of Los Angeles. Not only that, but it will be the largest and most inclusive World Cup ever hosted. Host cities are spread throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada, with 48 teams competing in 16 different cities, including my hometown of Los Angeles and 10 other American cities. This commemorative coin will provide a unique opportunity to inspire love of soccer in the United States while also celebrating this unifying global event. It is estimated that 16 million fans will attend the matches in the United States alone. This World Cup 2026 is organized by FWC26, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit in the United States, which is designed to continue after the event has ended, emphasizing the organization's long-term commitment to soccer in the United States. Specifically, this commemorative coin is designed to encourage United States-based soccer programs, as the proceeds from the sale of these coins will be used to grow the sport of soccer throughout the United States with a focus on youth in underserved communities. Madam Speaker, I applaud the sponsors of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance my time to close. Madam Speaker, this bill would direct the U.S. Mint to create a commemorative coin to honor the FIFA World Cup 2026, which will be the first time a World Cup is hosted by three nations. I hope this event and the coin that we are creating today will bring together millions of people from different countries to celebrate soccer. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am so pleased and proud to be on this floor today in recognition of Vietnam-era veterans and their service to this country. As a matter of fact, I have always felt very bad when I encountered Vietnam-era veterans and always apologized to them for the fact that they were not received back to their country in a manner that they should have been and received the resources that they deserved, having served our country. This is a very important bill that will honor the U.S. Army Dustoff crews of the Vietnam war collectively in recognition of their extraordinary heroism, their lifesaving actions in Vietnam, and their direct contribution to the defense of the United States. I thank Mr. Kilmer and all the other sponsors of this bill. Further, I asked my staff as we were sitting here: Were the Dustoff crews a special unit that we are honoring today? Should we be looking at other Vietnam-era veterans? It is a question I am raising as I make this presentation today. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Kilmer so very much for his comments. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Today will serve as a reminder that we should work hard to guard against terrorism and always stand against hate. Mr. Speaker, moving to the debate on H.R. 9456, I would like to start by noting that Democrats, especially those serving on the Financial Services Committee, have a strong record of working with Republicans to counter threats from the People's Republic of China. In fact, just yesterday, the House passed two bills from our committee. Unfortunately, H.R. 9456 is not an example of that kind of bipartisanship. In fact, this bill undermines a bipartisan law that we passed just 6 months ago. Yes, it was 6 months ago that the House and Senate worked across the aisle and with the Biden-Harris administration to pass legislation that would protect our national security from adversarial countries like China acquiring critical agricultural land in the United States. To help review foreign investments involving U.S. agriculture, this bipartisan law added the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is the interagency committee that determines whether a foreign investment in a United States company or asset could pose a threat to our national security. That law further codified reporting and coordination between the Secretary of Agriculture and CFIUS. I mention this law, Mr. Speaker, because I think my Republican colleagues have forgotten what we did only 6 months ago. In their rush to pull together bills for the so-called China week, they appear to have brought up a poorly drafted copy of legislation we already passed. However, in the frenzy to bring this bill to the floor, H.R. 9456 doesn't duplicate the law. Rather, it results in the Secretary of Agriculture having to report countless transactions to the committee that have nothing to do with our national security. Currently, the law provides to the Secretary of Agriculture the support of the United States intelligence community to identify those transactions that may pose a threat to our national security. Inexplicably, H.R. 9456 removes that intelligence community assistance, leaving the Secretary to guess which transactions might pose a threat to our national security. Further, unlike the law that was passed just 6 months ago, the bill broadens the scope from ``foreign governments and entities of concern'' to now include ``foreign persons,'' which means all individuals and entities of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. This means anyone with citizenship in those countries, including refugees or people who are here in the United States with green cards or other visas. The bill's broad-brush approach of targeting individuals from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran amounts to racial profiling. This bill's focus is similar to the restrictive, xenophobic real estate laws passed in a number of States, like Florida, where citizens of the same countries are banned from buying property and which has resulted in numerous instances of discrimination. It is for this reason that this bill is opposed by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Biden-Harris administration has also put out a Statement of Administration Policy, saying that is it inconsistent with CFIUS process and would not be implementable as drafted. Mr. Speaker, these deficiencies, taken together, will divert precious resources from CFIUS' targeted national security reviews. This is a bad bill that harms the bipartisan work we already passed this year and would sow divisions among neighbors across America. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I will vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to highlight just how rushed the process for this bill has been. I remind my colleagues that this bill was only introduced 5 days ago, on Friday of last week. The notice of the Rules Committee hearing for this bill went out the same day that the bill was introduced, and the hearing happened the very next Monday. That timing didn't give Members and staff so much as a single business day to prepare, let alone for the Treasury Department and outside groups to conduct their own analyses. Needless to say, there hasn't been a single hearing on this bill, nor has it ever been marked up. To top it all off, the rule providing for consideration of the bill gives Members no opportunity for amendment. Considering we just passed legislation to address the very concerns that this bill purports to tackle, I can see no policy reason as to why we are moving ahead with this bill so hastily. Given the serious defects with this bill, I don't understand why Republican leadership is denying Members the opportunity to properly assess these issues. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted on following regular order again and again, so I would urge them to heed their own calls on this bill and allow this body to properly consider this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right that the Financial Services Committee passed language that is similar in some respects to Representative Newhouse's bill just 6 months ago in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. That language reflected bipartisan work done by the Financial Services Committee on two Republican bills that had been marked up by our committee with unanimous votes. We continue to work in a bipartisan manner as well as with the Senate and the Treasury Department to get language that reflected these two bipartisan bills into the appropriations bill, which ultimately got passed into law. It is simply false to claim that the bill we are considering today is somehow a harmless duplication of what we have already enacted, as I have laid out in detail already. This bill undermines the bipartisan work that we have done on this issue and raises serious concerns about both national security and racial profiling. We already did the work to strike a reasonable bipartisan compromise on this front, but Republicans are choosing to undermine that bipartisanship with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Several groups have come out in opposition to this bill over concerns of racial discrimination and profiling, including the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, the Stop AAPI Hate, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union. For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union: This legislation discriminates and targets individuals solely because of their citizenship and tends to conflate individuals from covered countries with their governments. It does this despite the lack of any showing that it is necessary or that passing this bill would do anything to protect U.S. national security interests. According to the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus: H.R. 9456 is not an effective way to address national security. It is a continuation of our Nation's shameful history in enacting racist alien land laws from the 19th and 20th century that barred Chinese and Japanese immigrants from purchasing land and which eventually laid the groundwork for mass incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. We cannot go back to those shameful parts of our history where we denied equal protections and due process for entire ethnic groups simply because of their ethnic heritage. The bipartisan language that we already passed into law appropriately tailors reporting from the Secretary of Agriculture to include only those transactions that have a national security nexus, including transactions that involve foreign governments or entities of concern, which is defined to include foreign terrorist organizations or sanctioned entities on the Treasury Department's economic and trade sanctions lists. The law also provides support to the Secretary of Agriculture from the United States intelligence community to determine which transactions may pose a national security concern. This bill overturns that bipartisan compromise and would treat refugees and legal immigrants from any of these countries in the same manner as known terrorist groups. This is outrageous. I hope that both sides of the aisle will do what is right, do what is fair, and recognize the history that we are not proud of as it relates to racial profiling. I hope that we would do the right thing on this bill. This bill should not be passed. We have already done what was needed in a bipartisan way. I don't know why they would take time to undermine the work that we did, and I certainly want a ``no'' vote on the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague across the aisle has pointed out that the language that we passed into law as part of the Appropriations Act just 6 months ago may expire along with the appropriations. While that may be the case, it is simply false to claim that all this bill would do is ensure that the language survives past that expiration. If that were all this bill were doing, I would support it, the same way I supported that language before. In fact, I would urge Republicans to bring a bill to the floor that would exclusively eliminate any expiration on the bipartisan language that we have already passed so that we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue, instead of moving this harmful bill that we are considering here today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I laid out in my opening remarks, this bill confusingly duplicates and conflicts with existing law. To be clear, this bill would add new language rather than amending the existing language that is already in law. Having two conflicting laws creates significant legal ambiguity as to how to interpret these competing texts. It would undoubtedly result in litigation as agencies struggle to determine what their legal obligations are, tying up limited resources at both CFIUS and the Department of Agriculture. This hastily written text does not appear to have appropriately taken into account the resulting legal ambiguities, and I would urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, at the very least, take the time to address these legal ambiguities and provide a clear mandate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. H.R. 9456 undercuts not only a bipartisan accomplishment from 6 months ago, but also our government's ability to stop adversarial countries like China and Russia from acquiring companies, technology, and land that are critical to our national security. This bill will also cause financial harm to lawful, permanent residents and other immigrants based solely on an investor's citizenship. Members of this body considered this issue just 6 months ago, passing bipartisan legislation to add the expertise of the Secretary of the USDA to CFIUS and improving the process by which agricultural land transactions are shared with and reviewed by the government. That bill was drafted in coordination with the Biden-Harris administration as well as Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. It was passed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. There is no need to rewrite this law. H.R. 9456 is a rush job by the House Republican leadership, and it shows how harmful this bill is to both our national security and the people who we serve. I would just say to my colleagues that if you are really concerned about security, if you really want to support ag and the farmers, why did you just pull the continuing resolution that we were supposed to take up to continue government functioning? Now, I guess you don't have the votes, and you are doing nothing to protect the very people who you purport to want to protect. Wow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

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, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 109, which if passed would undermine the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to protect people who buy cryptocurrency. Today, Republicans want to override President Biden's veto and block the SEC from setting accounting standards for companies that hold digital assets, like crypto, on behalf of their customers. This resolution is part of a long list of efforts by industry and its allies to attack the good work of the SEC, which has made significant progress in protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation. Preserving the power of the SEC to protect investors and our markets is now more important than ever, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper v. Raimondo, which, by overturning Chevron deference, has now undermined the authority of the SEC and other Federal agencies. The SEC staff accounting bulletin, SAB 121, is an informal guidance intended to clarify confusion raised by market participants. One prong of SAB 121 that would be repealed by today's resolution is about giving the public disclosures to increase transparency about these cryptoassets. This kind of transparency helps prevent the kind of fraud and mishandling of crypto that led to the collapse of companies like FTX and a dozen other crypto firms that were handling and safeguarding customers' assets. The second part of SAB 121's guidance advises companies to record cryptoassets as liabilities on their balance sheets and to ensure those liabilities correspond to the fair value of the cryptoassets they are obligated to safeguard. This ensures that the company providing custody has sufficient resources to secure these assets for the users against any loss or misuse. The SEC has explained that this guidance is prudent due to the unique risk and uncertainties associated with cryptoassets. These risks include hacks, theft, and technical failures. SEC's guidance simply says a firm that safeguards cryptoassets on behalf of customers should account for these unique crypto risks by recording these assets on its balance sheet as a liability. These safeguards would be completely undermined by passing H.J. Res. 109. The crypto industry and its allies have long chided the SEC for not providing enough clarity over how cryptoassets should be regulated. However, SAB 121 directly addressed industry uncertainty. It is just that the industry didn't like the answer they got. Should H.J. Res. 109 come into law, it would not only eliminate SAB 121's helpful guidance, but it would also permanently block the agency's ability to do anything substantially similar in this area in the future. One special interest group representing large custody banks has provided the SEC with targeted modifications to SAB 121, which would avoid the sledgehammer effect of this legislation. I understand that the SEC may be close to reaching an agreement on these modifications, which would ensure that well-regulated entities, like custody banks, can offer crypto custody services consistent with SAB 121. Nevertheless, despite the fact that this issue will soon be moot, Republicans are pushing ahead anyway with this blunt and overly broad approach. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this veto override, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. If I may respond to the gentleman.

Ms. WATERS. As I said when I made the presentation, they are close to working out the deal with SAB and the custody bank.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, no matter what is said, this is about overriding the President's veto. My colleagues argue that SAB 121 undermines the investor protection by discouraging crypto firms and other entities from providing custody services. However, the numbers show this couldn't be further from the truth. According to figures provided by SEC staff, at least 10 U.S. firms are already offering SAB 121-compliant crypto safeguarding services. As of the end of last year, they were safeguarding close to $210 billion worth of crypto assets in a SAB 121-compliant way. This just goes to show, despite all of the talk, that SAB 121 will lead to less companies wanting to safeguard crypto assets. There are, indeed, plenty of firms out there that are doing so in compliance with this staff accounting bulletin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this effort to override the President's veto of H.J. Res. 109. If passed, Congress would block the SEC from providing much-needed and timely clarity to our markets. We would also be preventing the SEC from ensuring companies that hold crypto on behalf of Americans take the necessary care to ensure those holdings are transparent and accounted for. For all of the handwringing about the lack of regulatory clarity in the crypto space, it is baffling to me how the industry wants to make it harder for the SEC to use one of the primary mechanisms it has to provide clarity around crypto: Staff guidance and accounting bulletins. H.J. Res. 109 is a sledgehammer when what may be needed to address concerns is a scalpel. CRA resolutions, as these are referred to, not only overturn the agency guidance that is the subject of the resolution, but also prevents the SEC from issuing any substantially similar guidance in the future. In essence, even if the SEC wanted to offer clarity around crypto custody in the future, they would no longer be able to do so. If Republicans want to address the issue previously raised by custody banks, Members could have done that, but now my colleagues have put forth a bill that causes broad harm not only to the SEC, but all the people and companies that rely on the agency to maintain safety and stability. Madam Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5403, which would not only prohibit the issuance of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, but would go so far as to prohibit the Federal Reserve from holding bank reserves that are critical to operating payment systems and combating inflation. Let me start with the harmful implications of the bill's prohibitions on the issuance of a CBDC. A CBDC is a type of digital asset issued by a country's central bank, which in the United States is the Federal Reserve. Compared to other digital assets, CBDCs have a greater potential to maintain a stable value, garner public trust, and become a viable means of payment transactions. There are two main types of CBDCs, retail CBDCs that consumers could get from the Fed or a financial institution to pay for everyday things like a cup of coffee, and wholesale CBDCs that would not be used by individual consumers and instead only used for transactions among financial institutions and the Fed. CBDCs are no longer a remote, futuristic possibility. Madam Chair, 134 countries and currency unions around the world, representing 98 percent of global GDP, are currently exploring or implementing a CBDC. Some have referred to the development of a CBDC as the next space race, but the United States is way behind the curve. What is more, there is growing concern that China, which has already issued its own CBDC that has been used by hundreds of millions of people, will be able to significantly influence the rest of the world's CBDC development because the U.S. is so far behind. This is especially problematic, given the Chinese CBDC has government surveillance baked in while a United States CBDC could be designed to protect consumer privacy and other deeply held American values. This bill exacerbates these concerns by proposing to make the United States the first and only country in the world to ban a CBDC. By allowing other countries, especially China, to race ahead of us, H.R. 5403 directly threatens the primacy of the United States dollar. Today, more than half of all international trade and more than 90 percent of all foreign exchange transactions are done in dollars. The dollar's dominance provides significant benefits to the United States, like lower borrowing costs for consumers, lower capital costs for United States businesses, and the ability to better implement U.S. foreign policy goals. In fact, the dollar's widespread use is what makes our sanctions so powerful, allowing us to block adversaries like Russia and Iran from doing business not just with the United States but with anyone who uses the dollar. That is why countries, including China and Russia, are trying to establish an alternative to the dollar, including developing alternative digital currencies so they can more effectively evade United States sanctions. CBDCs also have the potential to offer benefits compared to United States dollars like faster and cheaper transactions. If the United States sits on the sidelines as other major economies move forward with CBDC development, another digital currency like the digital euro could very well become the world's preferred currency for international trade. If this weren't bad enough, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, has pointed out that the ban on CBDCs in this bill can be interpreted to encompass the Federal Reserve's bank reserves. These reserves are instrumental to several core functions of the Fed, including their ability to conduct monetary policy. This means that H.R. 5403 would undermine the Federal Reserve's set of tools needed to ensure our economy does not enter a recession as inflation comes down. It also means that the bill could disrupt our banking system by preventing the Fed from using payment systems like Fedwire to quickly move funds between financial institutions. While some may think that this is merely a drafting error, it appears to be deliberate. During the markup of their bill, Democrats pointed out on the record how this overly broad definition of CBDC could harm the Fed's broader ability to conduct monetary policy. Despite having every opportunity to fix the bill before it was considered here today, Republicans have kept the language the same. Let's not forget that Donald Trump has made clear his intention to undermine the Fed with repeated threats to fire the Fed Chair when he was in office, and more recently, with reports that he would want to set interest rates from the Oval Office. Furthermore, Project 2025, which is an extreme MAGA transition playbook for a Trump administration, would abolish the Fed. House Republicans have already introduced a bill to do just that. I urge Members to see this bill for what it is. It is not about protecting consumer privacy. After all, our current financial system has a number of data privacy shortcomings that this bill would do nothing to address. Moreover, there is nothing inherent about a CBDC that would compromise privacy. That is a design feature that is within our control. This bill is, instead, an attempt to stifle U.S. innovation and competitiveness abroad and to undermine the Federal agency that is the most critical to fighting inflation. Unbelievable. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am surprised by my friend Representative French Hill. Representatives French Hill and Bill Foster sent Fed Chair Jay Powell a letter on CBDCs stating: The Federal Reserve, as the central bank of the United States, has the ability and the natural role to develop a national digital currency. With the potential for digital currencies to further take on the characteristics and utility of paper money, it may become increasingly imperative that the Federal Reserve take up the project of developing a U.S. dollar digital currency. We are concerned that the primacy of the U.S. dollar could be in long-term jeopardy from wide adoption of digital fiat currencies. Relying on the private sector to develop digital currencies carries its own risks, including loss of control of monetary policy, as well as the ability to implement and enforce effective anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) who is also the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, the bill's sponsor has warned that a U.S. CBDC would mirror the surveillance tactics that are baked into the Chinese CBDC without explaining why the United States would ever choose to design its CBDC in a manner that mimics Chinese surveillance. Privacy protections can be incorporated from the earliest development stages of a CBDC. This is what other privacy-focused jurisdictions have been doing with their CBDC development, like the European Union, because their constituents care about privacy, too. In fact, research from the Atlantic Council has noted that CBDCs can be designed in a way that offer cash-like privacy through the use of zero-knowledge proofs, encryption, and other design features where a payment validator processes transactions but does not learn the identities of those involved without the permission of the parties. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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