Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Kartoon was a special human being. He could have been another unfortunate statistic in Watts but Kartoon was determined that his life could, and would, be better. He was also determined to be a change agent in his community, making the lives of others better as well. He helped negotiate the crucial gang truce between Bloods and Crips and would assist local residents find housing and get into rehab, changing their lives forever. I first met Kartoon through his friend Greg Brown at Project Build, an important social services organization I helped found many years ago. Kartoon was a larger-than-life, grassroots community activist who always had a positive outlook, a contagious laugh and could ``spit a poem'' better than most. With the right assistance, he got his life together and became both a substance abuse counselor, a successful Hollywood location scout and a supportive father who dearly loved his entire family. Kartoon left a lasting impression on everyone who met him. When attending an important community meeting or rally and blessing us with a poem, you knew Kartoon was in the room, and we were glad he was there. Kartoon blessed us with poetry. Here is my poem to Kartoon: To the family & friends of my friend Kartoon I join with you today To honor and remember The very special one Known to everyone as Kartoon Kartoon our dear friend And loved one who has left us way too soon. Kartoon the Poet with The great big smile It seems Kartoon was Only with us for a short while Our Kartoon was well known By so many in Watts, And all over Los Angeles and many more He has left us to grieve and Wonder as he closed the door I suppose the heavenly one up above knows best But now its time to let Kartoon rest. Kartoon lived a life of Fun, woes, and uncertainty He experienced both the good and the bad times But he sure loved life and people of all kinds Oh Kartoon and how he laughed He was full of jokes, he bluffed and he played But he always stayed I have been wondering and thinking, Now how is Kartoon going to conduct himself up yonder But we really don't have to worry, speculate or ponder One thing we know for sure Kartoon will be the center of attention with his rhymes so pure Kartoon always showed up Whenever we called And he never missed he helped us all There is much more that I could say But I think Kartoon would say let's leave all of that for another day Goodbye goodbye, my dear Kartoon, Now it is your time to soar, to lift your wings It is your time to fly You go on and, on in your glory, And don't you look back I've told you why. You've got it! You are the man! You, go on up there, And give God a hand.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Quincy Darnell Reese, Jr. was tragically killed by gunfire on Saturday, June 10, 2023. At only 16 years old, Quincy had already distinguished himself in the community. He excelled in his studies, maintaining a 3.4 grade point average. He was also a talented athlete who was recognized as a star basketball player and who had plans to try out for the football team in his senior year. To his closest friends, Quincy was described as a ``jokester'' who had a welcoming personality. I include in the Record the following remarks I delivered at Quincy's services, and today offer this to him, and his family and friends: Take some of the sadness from your hearts and gently replace it with the warmth of shared memories and the promise of peace to come. May you find some measure of comfort in knowing that extended family, friends, teachers, fellow students, and the community humbly join you in honoring Quincy as a loving son, a cherished brother, and beloved grandson, who represented his family and community with honor as a young African American man. He will be remembered as an exceptional student athlete, dedicated to his family, church, community and Crenshaw High. My son, Ed, who coached Quincy at Crenshaw, described him as a very gifted, hardworking, admired, and respected student who was senselessly taken from us much too soon. Quincy will be deeply missed by all who love him. May God bless you, give you strength, and keep you in His care always. With sympathy, Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 290, YEA on Roll Call No. 291, and NAY on Roll Call No. 292.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3564, the MAGA housing scam act, which follows the blueprint of the GOP tax scam by helping the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Homeownership is a quintessential part of the American Dream, and it is the single most important way that households today can build wealth. That is why expanding access to homeownership is one of the best ways that we can grow the middle class. Unfortunately, the dream of homeownership is becoming further out of reach for a growing number of households due to a worsening storm of rising interest rates and home prices, fueled by an undersupply of new housing. In fact, house prices have skyrocketed by 40 percent since 2020, and first-time homeownership rates have plummeted to an all-time low. Moreover, housing costs are a primary driver of inflation, which is hurting every household in America. It is against this backdrop that Republicans are actually working to make homeownership more expensive for everyone, especially the middle class. The MAGA housing scam act would affect two different types of fees that apply to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which make up the vast majority of mortgages today. First, this bill would extend a guarantee fee of 10 basis points for another year, costing all future home buyers an additional $5 billion. Second, this bill would reverse recent changes to loan level price adjustments, better known as LLPAs, which are another type of fee on mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie. The amount of this fee is risk- based, meaning that it varies depending on characteristics of the borrower and loan, such as income and downpayment; whether the loan has a fixed or a variable rate of interest; and whether the loan is a cash- out refinance. FHFA, which is the agency that regulates Fannie and Freddie, is responsible for determining the amount of the LLPAs and recently made changes to this fee to help middle-class borrowers. To illustrate, a middle-class borrower, say, with excellent credit, who makes maybe a 5 percent downpayment on a median-priced home would have their LLPA reduced by nearly half under FHFA's changes. This bill would reverse the recent changes made by FHFA, resulting in higher fees for middle-class borrowers. Again, the LLPAs, are only one of two fees affected by this bill. Altogether, this bill would hit middle-class borrowers with a double whammy of both an extension of a 10-basis point guarantee fee, and an increase in the LLPAs. During the debate in the Rules Committee on this bill, I pointed out how this bill hurts middle-class borrowers who have worked hard to build excellent credit but can't afford a 20 percent downpayment. Republicans doubled down, insisting that those with lower downpayments are riskier borrowers and deserve to pay more. What they failed to understand is that middle-class borrowers who can't afford a 20 percent downpayment are already required to purchase private mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a borrower's monthly mortgage cost. Private mortgage insurance protects Fannie and Freddie from the risks associated with the lower downpayment. Charging a higher LLPA for risks that are already covered by an insurance policy is simply unfair. During the Rules Committee debate, Republicans called FHFA's changes redistributive. Let's be clear: FHFA made changes to ensure that middle-class home buyers are not unfairly charged more for risks that are already covered by private mortgage insurance. This is hardly redistribution. It is ensuring that middle-class borrowers have a fair shot at homeownership. Mr. Davidson's bill, on the other hand, would absolutely redistribute costs from the middle class to the wealthy. Let me break this down for the Record. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that this bill would cost $1.8 billion before the addition of the manager's amendment. That represents $1.8 billion in fees that otherwise would have primarily affected the wealthiest home buyers who could barely notice such a nominal fee increase. In order to pay for this cost, Republicans added a 10-basis point guarantee fee that would increase costs for all home buyers to the tune of $5 billion. Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3564, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I will take a minute to say that the representation that middle-class home buyers who may not have 20 percent down also have bad credit is not true. The record should reflect that that is not true. That is made up by someone who would like to throw credit scores into this argument and argue that these middle-class buyers, who can't pay 20 percent down, all have bad credit. They do not. They have good credit, and they are eligible for a loan. The only thing they don't have is 20 percent down, and they get mortgage insurance in order to cover that. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I delve into additional remarks, the Congressional Budget Office deemed this bill to cost $1.8 billion. Why then would Mr. Davidson, with his amendments, create more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said his bill would cost? He has raised it $5 billion more. Who pays for that? I don't care how you put it. Whether it is paid for tomorrow, next month, next year, 10 years from now, who pays for that? The home buyers pay for that and that must be noted. The bill is increased by $5 billion by Mr. Davidson, even more than the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost at $1.8 billion. Why would he do that? Why would he charge home buyers more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost? Accordingly, I will explain further. Currently, middle-class borrowers who cannot make a 20 percent downpayment are charged higher LLPAs and must purchase private mortgage insurance. I am going to say it again. If you are paying less than 20 percent, you have to get private mortgage insurance to cover the risks that may be posed to the enterprises. This is an unfair double charge on middle-class borrowers for the same risks. Don't forget, they have paid their g-fees. Everybody has to pay the g-fees to help write the undercosts of the operation of FHFA. They pay those, and it is determined on each individual loan. It depends on the characteristics of that loan. You build in the question of risk in those fees and then you pay private mortgage insurance, which means the middle-class borrowers are paying more than the wealthy borrowers. In fact, borrowers with PMI also have excellent credit, with median FICO scores of 754 as of December 2020, and are more likely to be first-time home buyers. They also pose less loss severity to the enterprises than borrowers who have the means to make a downpayment of 20 percent or more. FHFA's mortgage pricing changes that reduce this unfair double charge on borrowers with PMI is a critical step to making the dream of homeownership attainable for the middle class in America. I oppose this bill, and I oppose my Republican colleague, who is part of the message going out from FOX News. I oppose this bill because, first of all, the $5 billion is an increase. The Republicans are forever saying that they are trying to cut budgets. They don't want to increase the amount of taxes. Yet, here he is increasing the amount that he claims he is charging homeowners, when even the Congressional Budget Office says it costs $1.8 billion, and now, he is asking for $5 billion. Well, I don't quite understand that, and nobody else should understand that. It is not needed. Again, they keep talking about credit scores. These middle-class homeowners, who could not afford to pay maybe 20 percent down, have good credit scores, equal credit scores to the wealthy home buyers. I don't get why he keeps talking about these credit scores. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, the MAGA housing scam act would reverse critical cost savings for middle-class borrowers as provided by FHFA. Before FHFA's May 1 changes, a middle-class borrower with a high credit score and a 5 percent downpayment on a medium-priced home would have paid an LLPA fee of $81 in addition to private mortgage insurance. Today, this borrower would pay half of that fee, allowing them to access affordable homeownership. Similarly, a borrower with the same credit score and a 40 percent downpayment on the same priced home would have paid only $27 before May 1 and today pays just $20. These are cost savings that Republicans not only want to eliminate but now they want to add an additional $5 billion in fees for everyone. This is a scam, not a protection for the middle class. This is messaging by FOX News. What is that $5 billion for? Why is it that Mr. Davidson is wanting to raise more money than even the Congressional Budget Office says the bill costs? This is not to be understood. I know that there is an attempt to try to make the argument that somebody wealthier is paying for those who have less income, less money, less resources. It is not true. Don't eliminate private mortgage insurance. If you pay less than 20 percent, you pay for private mortgage insurance in addition to the GSE fees. Middle-class borrowers were paying more than even the wealthier borrowers, so it had nothing to do with the credit score because the credit score of that home buyer who only paid less than 20 percent is as good as the credit score of the wealthier buyer. It had nothing to do with that at all. Again, I don't know why this argument is being made by the other side. It is an attempt, I think, to message in a way that goes directly to constituents who they make angrier because their government is making them do something they should not be making them do. Don't politicize this. This is about homeownership. This is about the American Dream. This is about making sure that those people who can afford to buy a home are able to do so. The idea that anybody would say that, if you can't make a 20 percent downpayment but can pay for private mortgage insurance, you must not have good credit scores, that is an absolute untruth. As a matter of fact, you would not be able to get that loan if you had bad credit scores. I wish the opposition would stop making that argument because it does not fly. That person who is paying, again, private mortgage insurance also has a good credit score. They didn't have the 20 percent down, but they are paying for it with their private mortgage insurance. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 3564, which harms middle-class home buyers and their ability to access homeownership on fair and affordable terms. This bill responds to a misinformation campaign, again initiated by a friend of the Republicans, FOX News, and propagated by extreme MAGA Republicans. It protects wealthy home buyers and imposes billions in new fees on all home buyers. Mr. Chair, I also oppose this bill because it completely ignores our Nation's worsening housing crisis, which is locking millions out of the dream of homeownership. MAGA Republicans are instead focused on a minuscule fee in the home-buying process that does nothing to address our Nation's housing shortage and rising housing costs that are driving inflation. We have a shortage of 14 million homes nationwide and more than 582,500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night, with homelessness rising faster in rural communities than anywhere else in the country. Meanwhile, U.S. renters are paying more of their income on rent today than ever before. These are the real problems that Republicans should be working to solve, not increasing fees by billions of dollars according to the CBO. In fact, this bill is opposed by Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Housing Resource Center. Industry groups such as the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors are also very concerned about this. Republicans are forever worried about the fact that we are not making enough cuts. Yet, in the negotiations that just occurred on raising the debt limit, they wanted to cut, cut, cut, cut. They are not only jeopardizing middle-class homeowners, but they are increasing the amount of money--more than even needed--than the Congressional Budget Office has said the bill would cost. Why $5 billion? I don't get it. I don't understand, but I am through with it. Mr. Chair, I simply ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, actually, I don't even want to waste another minute on this pointless and redundant amendment. Anyone who pays attention to government oversight knows that the GAO already makes all of its reports resulting from legislative mandates publicly available on the GAO's website as soon as they are issued to Congress. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: one from Americans for Financial Reform and one from Public Citizen. Americans for Financial Reform, May 23, 2023. Hon. Patrick McHenry, Chairman, House Committee on Financial Service, Washington,

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3564 from the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Housing Resource Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Fair Housing Alliance. [From the Center for Responsible Lending, Sept. 2020] More Harm and No Good--So-Called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023'' Leaves Borrowers and Taxpayers Less Financially Secure The Center for Responsible Lending OPPOSES H.R. 3654, the so-called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023,'' and urges Members of Congress to do the same. As written, the bill would: (1) undo the Federal Housing Finance Agency's recent cost changes for mortgages under the loan-level- pricing-adjustment framework used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and (2) subject any future framework changes to the Administrative Procedure Act. Yet. rather than protecting America's middle class, these proposals would make it more expensive for middle-class consumers to become homeowners using conventional mortgage loans and more difficult for many consumers to enter America's middle class by obtaining affordable, conventional mortgage credit. Here is what policymakers, advocates, and consumers need to know: (1) H.R. 3654 Undermines Middle Class Borrowers By Undoing The Pricing Reductions That Were Recently Made For Them. This bill would eliminate the reductions in loan-level-pricing adjustments (LLPAs) that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently established. Those reductions were targeted to the lower wealth, credit-worthy borrowers who disproportionately make up or seek to enter America's middle class. (2) H.R. 3654 Makes it Harder for More Americans to Enter the Middle Class by Raising the Cost of a Conventional Home Loan for First-Time And Working-Class Borrowers. Homeownership continues to be the single most important factor in determining the ability of an American household to build wealth and enter or maintain middle-class status. Yet, by eliminating the pricing reductions FHFA recently implemented for lower-wealth and first-time homebuyers, the proposed bill reinforces a two-tier housing finance system where the conventional mortgage market continues to prioritize wealthier borrowers while first-time, underserved or rural borrowers with less wealth are dependent upon government-backed loans from federal agencies. That result is inconsistent with the statutory purpose and mandate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the FHFA has noted, ``[a]chieving a liquid, resilient housing finance market throughout the country requires improved access to responsible mortgage credit across different market segments of creditworthy borrowers. (3) H.R. 3654 Makes All Taxpayers More Vulnerable by Disrupting Safety And Soundness Regulation of for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated unequivocally that the primary cause of the crisis was a failure on the part of the government to regulate the financial industry, particularly in the secondary mortgage market. Based on its own experience in that regard, Congress created an independent FHFA, empowered it to assume conservator responsibilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ensured that it would have the ability to act swiftly and independently from the political process to manage each government-sponsored enterprise's safety and soundness considerations. Under H.R. 3654, FHFA would Jose the ability to act swiftly on pricing considerations tied to safety and soundness by being subjected to the Administrative Procedure Act. That result would require the Agency to delay implementation of pricing changes for an extended period that often does not match changing dynamics in the financial markets. As a result, taxpayers would be a greater risk for, once again, having to bail out the enterprises. @ Making homeownership more expensive for moderate income borrowers and less accessible for first-time, workingclass, rural and other underserved borrowers is not protecting America's middle class. Likewise, depriving the enterprises' conservator of the tools needed to swiftly respond to safety and soundness considerations raised by pricing and, in the process, increasing the likelihood of another taxpayer funded bail out is not protecting American taxpayers. For each of these reasons, H.R. 3654, the ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023,'' is bad public policy and should not be enacted. CRL urges Members of Congress to vote against the measure.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, these organizations all fight hard for homeownership, especially for middle-class Americans. They are absolutely opposed to this bill. Again, I don't understand why we are spending time on this amendment. It does not accomplish anything at all. It would require GAO to do something it already does. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Pettersen's amendment which is simply holding Republicans accountable for their claims about the impacts of the bill. They claim that this bill will help middle-class home buyers, so I don't see why there should be any objection to this amendment which would make the implementation of the bill contingent on the truth of its claims. Republicans held hearings on this topic where their own witnesses repeatedly debunked MAGA Republicans' claims that these changes would result in higher credit score borrowers paying higher mortgage fees than lower credit borrowers. If we agree that the goal of this bill is to help middle-class borrowers, then I think we should be able to agree on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2797, the Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Nebraska. The accredited investor framework serves to protect the general public from investing in high-risk, illiquid, private securities because they lack the safeguards that are a feature of public securities. Unlike our public capital markets, companies do not provide anywhere near the same financial and other disclosures to investors for private offerings. Private securities also do not offer the same legal protections for investors. The SEC and State securities regulators do not have the same ability to police the private markets as they can the public markets. The general rationale behind the comparative lack of regulations governing private securities is that institutional investors like private equity funds, hedge funds, banks, and others can demand the disclosures from the company in exchange for their investment and have significant legal resources to hold the company accountable. These Wall Street players and other big-money investors don't necessarily need the same level of protections when investing as compared to retail investors like working families do. The accredited investor definition ensures that those who are eligible to invest in private securities do, in fact, have the knowledge to know these heightened risks. Initially, the SEC defined accredited investors to be those who possess an intimate understanding of the risk and had the knowledge base to decide whether to invest in these particular types of securities. However, the companies needing to raise capital privately and the underwriters and intermediaries facilitating these capital-raising activities argued for a simpler approach, so the SEC adopted the current definition which is based on financial resources. Today, an accredited investor must meet three criteria: They must have a net worth either individually or with a spouse exceeding $1 million, excluding the value of their home; make more than $200,000 a year or $300,000 with a spouse; or since 2020, hold certain professional certifications or designations, such as being an investment adviser or broker. This bill being considered under suspension today aims to return to the original concept of accredited investor, which is that investors in these high-risk investment offerings should be fully aware and knowledgeable of the risks involved. We all know that just because you have a million dollars, it doesn't mean that you understand the complexities of investing. This is why it is important for the SEC to also update the current thresholds so that Wall Street intermediaries are not able to sell unregulated securities to individuals who have become accredited solely based on the inflated value of their retirement assets. For example, unfortunately, there are millions of accredited investors who are now being solicited to invest in products they have little knowledge about and the SEC should act to amend the definition of the accredited investors to protect those investors. On the other hand, we have heard from some investors who really want to try their luck with some of these risky and illiquid investments, but they do not qualify as an accredited investor because they don't meet the wealth or the income test. The Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act would solve the latter part of this problem by allowing an individual to qualify as an accredited investor if they pass an exam that ensures they are sufficiently versed in the risk of investing in the private markets. Generally, private markets are understood to have a higher potential for total loss and can be significantly illiquid than the public markets, so having a deep understanding of these risks is necessary to navigate the space. In addition, there are fewer protections for investors when things go wrong with an investment. With this change, any investor who wants to invest in private securities can now do so if they can pass this test, which would establish they are keenly aware of the particular risks related to high-risk and illiquid securities, as well as the conflicts of interests presented when financial professionals sell these products to investors. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Flood and Chair McHenry for working with me to ensure that the test in this bill is established by the SEC and that it contains specific, robust elements that witnesses at previous committee hearings talked about when discussing how they teach and mentor their budding investors. I am also pleased that the tests in this bill would be available free of charge. I think that this bill will solve the problem of people who are ready to invest, who are not millionaires, they are not billionaires, but they are smart and they know how to determine what the risks are. If they are prepared to take them, then let them do so. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel), the lead cosponsor of this bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, it is important to appropriately tailor the accredited investor definition to protect those who do not have the requisite knowledge to make certain investments while creating a pathway for those who have demonstrable knowledge about the risk associated with investing in private securities. I believe this bill would ensure that those who possess the knowledge and risk appetite for privately-issued securities are able to invest in those. Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support this bill that is offered by Mr. Flood and Mr. Nickel, 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, I rise in support of H.R. 2792, the Small Entity Update Act, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Missouri. This bill directs the SEC to carry out a study and rulemaking, if appropriate, on its definitions of ``small entities'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that the SEC accounts for impacts on businesses when pursuing rulemakings. The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides small entities with an expanded opportunity to participate in the development of certain regulations. Through the study contemplated under the bill, ``small entities'' under SEC's jurisdiction would gain a louder voice when it comes to the development of SEC regulations that directly apply to them. I am pleased that Mrs. Wagner was willing to accept changes to this bill I pressed for that would ensure that the SEC remains in exclusive control of the study, and whatever the outcome of the study, SEC's actions would be consistent with its overall mission. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Wagner for working with us on this bill. I also thank Mrs. Wagner for working with Mr. Casten to include his suggestion related to an inflation adjustment for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, 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, I rise in support of H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi- Class Share Disclosures Act, sponsored by the gentleman from New York. This bill closes documented gaps around multi-class governance structures. Multi-class governance structures are those where corporate insiders or beneficial owners retain an outsized amount of voting power relative to their shares. These structures, while they may add value, can pose significant risks to other investors, making sunlight ever more important for investors. Specifically, these structures limit investors' ability to influence management, direct strategy, and hold misaligned boards accountable. Under current rules, the difference between a corporate insider's voting power and their ownership interest, regardless of how large that gap may be, is often disclosed in ways that are difficult for a retail investor to fully comprehend. Accordingly, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee recommended that the SEC amend its rules to ensure that this gap is better identified and quantified for investors via a disclosed ratio. This commonsense bill adopts this recommendation to ensure investors have the clearest information available to make the best decision for themselves. This bill is supported by the Council of Institutional Investors, whose members manage trillions of dollars of assets for people all across America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the sponsor of this bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill is pro-transparency, pro-investor, pro-corporate accountability. It strengthens investors' and other stakeholders' ability to understand the risks associated with investing in companies that have dual-class share structures. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2796, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act. At the beginning of this Congress, Chairman McHenry expressed an interest in working with me to pass sensible, pro-investor, and pro- capital formation bills, particularly if they will help small businesses. My bill would do just that. It will encourage the SEC to better serve the needs of underserved small businesses, coordinate better with State regulators, all the while protecting investors. The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation is an independent SEC office that was established to advance the interests of small businesses. Under my bill, the office would be directed to proactively work to identify and address unique challenges faced by minority owned, women-owned, and rural small businesses, as well as businesses located in natural disaster areas. My bill requires the SEC's Small Business Advocate to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital-raising options for these underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas. We all know that oftentimes you need that face-to-face connection to tell your story, but all too often, minority-owned businesses aren't invited to those gatherings. My bill would also require the office to meet annually with representatives of State Securities Commissions to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach to addressing the unique needs of underrepresented businesses. The North American Securities Administrators Association strongly supports this legislation, particularly as it would strengthen collaboration and coordination between regulators. Indeed, my bill makes sure that Federal regulators and State regulators do just that, while at the same time advancing the cause of small business capital formation across the spectrum. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself the balance of my time. I am pleased to have worked with Chairman McHenry on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on other bills that are pro-small business and pro-capital formation, while at the same time strengthening the ability of our market and investor protection agencies to do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.