Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, sponsored by Mr. Lucas, would be better titled the retirement hazard for charities and educational institutions amendment because it puts the retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk. 403(b) retirement plans cater to teachers, school administrators, professors, nonprofit employees, and healthcare workers. These individuals dedicate their lives to the public interest. They invest in the future of our children. They ensure we get the healthcare we need, even during a global pandemic, and too often, they aren't paid nearly enough to do the work that they do. There are current restrictions on how 403(b) plans can invest their assets, and this is to ensure that these retirement accounts are generally safe investments. However, this amendment would allow 403(b) plans to invest in two types of risky, unregistered securities: collective investment trusts, or CITs, which is a type of pooled investment vehicle, and insurance products called variable annuities, both of which are considered fairly risky products for unsophisticated investors. Madam Chair, under this amendment, neither of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC. More than half of all 403(b) plans are not covered by ERISA protections, meaning that this newly allowed risky investment activity would also escape the oversight of the Department of Labor. While Republicans claim they are creating parity with 401(k) plans, this is simply untrue because all 401(k) plans are, in fact, covered by ERISA. To create true parity, we would need to restrict the sale of CITs and variable annuities to only 403(b) plans covered by ERISA. All in all, this amendment would carve out over $1.4 trillion of retirement funds from Federal oversight. This would constitute the single largest deregulation of our capital markets in years. Ultimately, this amendment would put the hard-earned retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk. That is why I strongly oppose it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, by allowing unregistered financial professionals to sell unregistered products to 403(b) plans, this amendment would leave America's teachers, healthcare workers, and other public interest professionals vulnerable to losing their retirement funds. Neither of the two unregistered products contemplated nor the sales of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC, which allows them to skirt investor protections and exposes plan participants to greater risk of loss. Congress must do everything in its power to ensure our teachers and dedicated public servants have a comfortable retirement, but this amendment would do anything but that. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment would be better titled increasing investor risks. Currently, closed-end funds, which are a type of mutual fund, are only allowed to invest up to 15 percent of their assets into private funds. This current limit of 15 percent gives closed-end funds some flexibility to invest in private funds but establishes a reasonable restriction, considering private funds are subject to less regulation and disclosure. This restriction also accounts for the fact that private funds invest in fledgling startups and distressed companies, which are significantly more risky than public securities, and most of their investments fail. Mrs. Wagner's amendment would eliminate the restriction on closed-end fund investments into private funds, allowing them to invest up to 100 percent of their assets into private funds. Moreover, the amendment provides zero safeguards to mitigate the new risks created by this blunt deregulation. Like all the rest of the capital markets-related amendments before us today, this one is opposed by investor groups, consumer and investor advocates, and State regulators. For these reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, as I stated, the assets that private funds purchase are significantly more risky than public securities. In fact, 9 out of every 10 of their investments fail. Allowing closed-end funds to invest all of their assets into private funds can be risky for America's retirement savers, who should be able to trust that these funds are safe investments for them to save for retirement. As such, Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 1, and NAY on Roll Call No. 2.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 4768, the No Russian Agriculture Act. I thank Chairman McHenry for his support of my bill and his efforts to get it to the House floor. I certainly appreciate the ability to start the new year on this bipartisan note. Over nearly 2 years, Russia's unprovoked and criminal war against Ukraine--led by Russian President Vladimir Putin, his military, and his mercenaries--has inflicted tremendous harm to Ukraine's people and infrastructure. Among its many horrific acts, Russia has endeavored to strangle Ukraine's economy by restricting the country's exports, including those of its agricultural sector, which is critical to maintaining the world's food supply. Prior to the war, Ukraine was the world's fourth largest corn exporting country and the fifth largest wheat exporting country. Annually, 400 million people were fed with Ukrainian food products with more than 50 nations receiving those goods. It is why Ukraine has been called the breadbasket of Europe. Russia previously agreed to the Black Sea grain initiative, pledging to allow for Ukrainian commercial food and fertilizer exports from three Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea. In July of last year, however, Russia withdrew from that initiative, causing global food prices to spike and hunger and pain around the world. Since then, Russia has attacked ports and grain stores in Ukraine, limiting the entrance of its agricultural products into the global market. Today, Russia is not only trying to unjustly seize Ukrainian land, but it is also trying to sell its own grain and stolen Ukrainian grain into the world's market to support its war efforts. This bill will help to push back on Russia while also increasing grain supply resiliency in the face of the shocks that Russia is causing in the world's agricultural markets. Specifically, H.R. 4768 would require the Treasury to press the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other multilateral development banks to fund projects that decrease the reliance that countries around the world have on Russian agricultural commodities, particularly fertilizer and grain. Doing so will help to undercut the financing of Russia's war and will help to improve global resiliency to the food supply disruptions that are caused by Russian President Putin. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4768, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The brutality that Russia has unleashed upon the Ukrainian people is having profound effects in Ukraine and around the world. This includes significant cuts to global food supply and steep prices for countless foods and fertilizers. This bill provides a novel way for the United States to further counter Russia; to stand with our fellow democracy, Ukraine; to reduce the world's reliance on Russian food; and to undercut Putin's use of food as a weapon. However, I would emphasize that this bill is not a substitute for providing additional funding for Ukraine so that it can stand up to Putin and his invasion. Congress must come together to stand behind Ukraine and to display U.S. strength in the face of injustice. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critical bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, who has been working on this issue for a long time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 32 would repeal the CFPB's small business lending rule, which was required by Congress in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The CFPB's rule would simply require lenders to collect and report data on small business lending. This data will help drive competition in the market, lowering small business costs, and help combat discrimination. I worked closely with my colleague, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to ensure that this provision was included in the Dodd-Frank Act because we both knew how critical this data would be to helping small businesses. Access to capital is a key challenge that many small businesses face. For example, Goldman Sachs found that over 75 percent of small businesses they surveyed were concerned about access to capital. Research has also shown that minority-, women-, and LGBTQ+-owned businesses are more likely to be denied loans and pay steeper interest rates. Access to capital is an issue for many family farms, which don't have the same access that larger agricultural corporations have. In addition, access to capital is an issue for our young people working in the gig economy seeking to start a business of their own but too often told ``no'' by banks. Unfortunately, section 1071 of Dodd-Frank was not implemented for 13 years. In fact, small business owners had to sue the CFPB under the Trump administration to force implementation of this rule. One of the small business owners who sued the CFPB was ReShonda Young, a Black woman who founded Popcorn Heaven, a small business selling gourmet popcorn in Waterloo, Iowa. Ms. Young explained that she was a victim of discriminatory lending practices, saying: ``In several instances, there was just blatant discrimination, and in other cases, I found out about it later on. And it wasn't just me.'' She further explained: ``I had a regular hourly income. My personal expenses were pretty low, so it wasn't like I couldn't cash infuse from my personal [income] if I needed to. My credit score was good, but I couldn't get what I needed. . . . Enough of the disrespect. Enough with the blatant disrespect. When a bank says, `We don't want your business for any good reason. Why don't you move your account elsewhere?' it was at that point, okay, something has to be done.'' The CFPB, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, settled the case and agreed to a court-supervised timeline, resulting in the final rule that the CFPB issued this year. Now that the CFPB's rule has been finalized after all of these years, so many other small businesses in Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, California, and all across the country will be able to reap the benefits of a more transparent lending marketplace that Ms. Young should have had. Specifically, the CFPB rule will allow small businesses to comparison shop between lenders and see how much other small businesses are being charged for their loans. This price transparency is essential to a competitive and fair marketplace. In designing the rule, the CFPB was mindful of its impact on community financial institutions. For example, the rule completely exempts lenders that originated fewer than 100 small business loans in each of the 2 preceding years. This fully exempts more than 80 percent of depository institutions, including 98 percent of credit unions. For lenders that originated more than 100 loans, they would have more than 2 years before they would need to begin to comply with the rule in 2026. Make no mistake, S.J. Res. 32 is just another part of Republicans' relentless attack on the CFPB. They have erroneously claimed that the CFPB is unconstitutional and unaccountable and have even gone so far as to attempt to eliminate the agency altogether. Our constituents disagree. A recent bipartisan poll found that 82 percent of Americans, including 77 percent of Republicans, support the CFPB and its mission. I will highlight three main points about the CFPB small business lending rule that this resolution would repeal. First, the data collected under the rule is very similar to data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA. This data collection under HMDA has been going on for decades, successfully bringing much needed transparency to the mortgage market. Despite misleading claims by Republicans, I want to be very clear that small businesses are not--are not--are not required to provide demographic information about their ownership under the rule. It is completely voluntary. I have to repeat that because too many on the opposite side of the aisle are telling people that it is a mandate. It is not. It is voluntary. Second, this rule will help all small businesses thrive by providing greater transparency that will drive competition in the small business lending market ultimately increasing access to credit and lowering interest rates for small businesses. Third, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen how HMDA data from mortgages have been instrumental to identifying discriminatory trends like modern-day redlining. The CFPB's rule would similarly help prevent discrimination in the small business lending market, giving our regulators and the public another tool to identify discriminatory trends. Many of us also recall the challenges that too many small businesses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, when Congress stepped in to provide relief through the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, the big banks that were tasked with implementing the program chose to prioritize their concierge clients, including some Members of Congress, leaving small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, out in the cold. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the same big banks who misused PPP to the detriment of small businesses during the early stages of the pandemic are now pushing for the passage of this Senate Joint Resolution 32 opposing the CFPB, which would help them continue to operate with a lack of transparency and avoid accountability. However, the big banks are alone in their support for this misguided resolution. In fact, more than 230 organizations representing small businesses, family farmers, community leaders, and others strongly oppose S.J. Res. 32. There is a lot of talk in Congress about how we love small businesses, how we support small businesses, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Therefore, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to actually do something to help small businesses. Stop talking about how you support small businesses when you know they need access to capital that they don't have. We want to do something real for small businesses. If you do, vote down this harmful resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has been working on the Small Business Committee for over 30 years and served as the chair before the last election and who has been fighting for small businesses all of her career.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, your arguments show that you are here to support the big banks who do not want small business in the banks. They don't want to be bothered. As a matter of fact, you try to be convincing that it is not voluntary, but it is voluntary. They are asked: Do you want to give this information? It is voluntary, and you can't get away from that. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have these Members on the opposite side of the aisle spending all of this time supporting the biggest, most profitable banks in the country, yet these Members won't stand up for small business lending. They don't want the data so that we can understand what is going on and why people in this country, minorities in particular, farmers, small farmers, family farmers, et cetera, can't get loans. In the last decade, these megabanks made so much money: J.P. Morgan, $215 billion; Wells Fargo, $197 billion; Bank of America, $105 billion; Citigroup, $93 billion. They repeatedly broke the law, even though they were making all of this money. I want you to know they consider this just the cost of doing business. We have even more here when we take a look at some of the other banks that paid fines instead of lending money. They would rather pay fines instead of lending to small businesses. What kind of fines are we talking about here? We fined them for all kinds of fraudulent activity. In the last decade, megabanks made so much money, and then they repeatedly paid fines. For example, the Bank of America paid $66 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. J.P. Morgan paid $43 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Citigroup paid $19 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Wells Fargo paid $12 billion in fines. Some of our Members want to say that we just want to shame these big banks. Yes, I do because it is a shame that they are so profitable that they do not want to spend time with small businesses. It takes up too much time. Small businesses don't earn as much money for the bank, et cetera. They don't even want them in their banks, and we have to do something about that. We are shining a light on the existing practices of lenders, and if those lenders are charging minorities and small family farmers, et cetera, exorbitant interest rates, there is no reason that we should not get the transparency that we need to stop this. I will tell you, one of the reasons you hear us being so passionate over here is because the big banks don't need you to defend them. They don't need you to stand up for them. You should be putting your time and effort into what you can do about the small businesses. I am not going to go into a lot of information. We have Members on the opposite side of the aisle who felt they needed capital. When we did PPP, they came to the government, competing with real small businesses that could not get capital. Not only did they take out the money, but they have been forgiven for it. They didn't have to pay it back. I am not going to talk about everybody, but I am going to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is everywhere talking about everybody, claiming she is for small business. She took out $180,000, and she has been forgiven. I am not going to talk about the rest of them, some of my friends over there, but I have a whole list of Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP money and didn't need it, some of them as rich as cream. They took this money, and they are not paying it back. Then, they come in here and talk about why we should not have transparency and do everything that we can for these small businesses that are desperate for capital. You can sing the song that you love small business all that you want. You can have the Small Business Saturday with a big, fake kind of operation on small business lending in your community, but it doesn't do any good if they don't get the capital. They need the money. They need to be treated fairly. Yes, I want to shame the big banks. I want to shame them. You have one of these banks that even took out false accounts, made up accounts, and we had to stop them. We fined them, but do you know what? They are too big to fail, and they keep doing what we are fining them for. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yes, I am a political activist. I am an activist for the people who send us here to represent them. I am an activist for the least of these. I am an activist for small business. I am an activist for veterans. I am an activist for children. I am an activist for education, for better healthcare, and I am very proud of it. I tell you, it is shameful for us to continue to be dominated and controlled by the biggest banks in America, taking time on the floor of the people's House to defend them and to vote against the very people who send you to this House to represent them. It is absolutely shameful. It is time to get out from under the influence and control of the biggest banks in America and stand up for the people who really need to make these banks do what they should be doing rather than saying: No, we are not going to comply with the law, and yes, we will pay the fines because we are rich. We have so much money we can do that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. When we started this debate, I mentioned ReShonda Young, who happens to be a young, Black woman from Waterloo who had many challenges getting a small business loan and sued the CFPB to complete the section 1071 rule. After CFPB settled the case with her, Ms. Young said: ``I am just humbled to be part of the process. Sometimes we feel so small, but this is one of those things that shows if we are willing to speak up, we actually can make a difference.'' Ms. Young has since sold her business and is now working with other investors to try to open up the first minority bank in Iowa, with the goal of being certified as a CDFI, offering the kind of small business loans to others that she had such a time obtaining. Let me just tell you something. We support CDFIs, the community development financial institutions. Why do we support them? Because they could not get loans from the banks in America. Here we are, the taxpayers, further trying to help small businesses by supporting these community development financial institutions. They were developed because small businesses couldn't get loans. Then, on the opposite side of the aisle, we have people who are opposing how we can support these small businesses by getting the transparency that we need to have done. They would rather support the biggest banks in America and have the taxpayers try to do something about small businesses with CDFIs than give their small businesses an opportunity. I tell you, I don't know how they are going to vote on the other side, but this issue is not going to go away. I tell you that the constituents are going to learn in this country who is supporting small businesses. All of this talk and this rhetoric about ``I love small businesses,'' ``I support small businesses,'' will not continue to work. The fact of the matter is, small businesses are shutting down, closing, because they don't have access to capital. For all those Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP loans that have been forgiven, you ought to be ashamed and not oppose the CFPB from trying to protect these small banks, as the courts have told them to do. Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that can be said. We are going to continue to unveil this information about who is simply spouting rhetoric and who is actually doing something for small businesses. It is unfortunate that we have to fight this hard. We have to do everything that we possibly can because the banks don't want them in their banks. They don't want to be bothered with them. They are too small. We have small businesses who only need $50,000 or $75,000 to improve their technology to take their businesses to a place where they can earn more money. We can't even start to talk about startup capital. None of them get startup capital. If they are able to convince anybody for a little capital to expand their businesses, they will do that. Otherwise, small businesses do not have the support of the Republicans in the House of Representatives as it is seen here today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Quigley very much for his leadership on the Subcommittee of Appropriations for T-HUD. Let me just remind everyone that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend on the opposite side of the aisle, voted against the infrastructure bill. I just want everybody to know that. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4820, which is among the worst-- if not the worst--housing appropriations bill that has ever come to the House floor. This bill would exacerbate the affordable housing crisis by slashing the Federal housing budget by nearly 30 percent. What is more concerning is the human cost of such draconian cuts. Specifically, these cuts would result in at least 15,000 families losing rental assistance, 20,000 affordable homes lost from the supply pipeline, and 78,000 children put at risk of in-home lead hazards. Mr. Chair, our children, families, and communities cannot afford such devastating costs. If we want to talk about dollars, research shows that cutting funding for homelessness and lead abatement costs taxpayers more due to increased cost of our healthcare, education, and criminal justice systems. Further, housing is a primary driver of inflation. This bill will only cause housing costs and inflation to rise even more. It is unconscionable that as we enter the colder holiday season, Republicans would rather evict families than simply fund housing programs at the levels needed to support current families receiving assistance. Indeed, 600,000 people are already homeless in the United States. Home prices have skyrocketed by 45 percent since 2020. Over 35 million people experienced rent hikes in the last year, and an alarming 4 million households are now on the brink of eviction or foreclosure. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I just continue by saying the Trump tax cuts for the rich cost $4 trillion. They are conservative when they want to be, but when we are needing housing opportunities for the least of these in this country, they cannot afford to be charitable and take care of the people of this country who need safe and secure housing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 552; NAY on Roll Call No. 553; NAY on Roll Call No. 554; NAY on Roll Call No. 555; NAY on Roll Call No. 556; YEA on Roll Call No. 557; and NAY on Roll Call No. 558.