Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3383 seeks to provide small businesses with more opportunities to access capital. A key avenue for most small companies to raise money is by seeking investments from a small number of accredited investors. These offerings, made under SEC regulation D, are exempt from registration with the SEC. However, these companies are required to file basic disclosures with the SEC on Form D, which is available to the public. The information provided on Form D is often bare bones, incomplete, or false. This makes it difficult for investors to understand the parameters of an exempt offering. What is worse, many bad actors located in the United States and all around the world are using reg D to misrepresent that they are SEC compliant, using false information on Form D and posting it to the SEC's public database, EDGAR. These fraudsters tell unsuspecting U.S. investors that they are registered with the SEC. We must stop these bad actors from using Form D to take hard-earned money out of Americans' savings and putting it into the hands of criminals. My amendment aims to fix this problem by requiring additional information about the identity of the company and the scope of its offering prior to making any sales. My amendment also requires a company to update Form D when there is a mistake or material change in the information and when the offering is complete. Furthermore, to prevent fraud, the amendment requires Form D filers to provide additional verification of their identity: who they are, such as registrations with the State Secretary of State, and to certify that the information in the Form D is accurate. Mr. Chairman, providing false information on Form D would expose the filer to criminal penalties. Form D reforms are a key priority for our States' securities regulators. They argue that many bad actors are harming legitimate businesses needing to raise capital under SEC's regulation D and that Form D reforms would lead to more capital formation. Mr. Chair, this is simple. It is very clear. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I encourage all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to strengthen information for people investing in private markets. As the opportunities to invest in private companies grow, in particular through measures promoted in this bill, we must take steps to ensure that investors are provided with accurate and complete information about what they are investing in. These are simple, commonsense protections that will make a big difference in ensuring accountability for exempt offerings and preventing the proliferation of fraud around form D filings. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would make junk fees illegal and require investment firms to clearly disclose the other fees they charge. For far too long, Wall Street has been charging junk fees that sap the investment returns of hardworking Americans and make it harder to save for retirement. This amendment makes clear that investment firms, be they an investment company, an investment adviser, or a broker-dealer, cannot charge any fees that are either not clearly disclosed to investors in advance or exceed the value of the services provided. These could include dubious fees like account closure fees, excessive markups, and undisclosed compensation or sales arrangements, inactivity fees, and so-called regulatory compliance fees. In addition to outright banning junk fees, this amendment requires investment firms to clearly disclose to their customers in advance any fees that they charge that customer. Investors should not face any surprises when it comes to the cost of investing their savings. Making sure that investors clearly know the risk and costs of choosing an investment firm or product should receive unanimous support from all Members of this body. Finally, this amendment would bring unprecedented transparency to how investment firms profit from the fees they charge investors. These firms would be required to annually report to the SEC the total profit earned from fees as a percentage of assets under management. The SEC would publish this information on a public database similar to a broker check along with a visual that shows whether these fees are high, low, or average when compared with their peer firms. By making this data public, American investors would be able to know how the fees charged by their investment firm compare to others and would also create market pressure on firms to make savings for the future more affordable for Americans. I strongly, strongly encourage all Members to support this amendment because this amendment is a commonsense solution that protects investors and brings accountability to the industry. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' in support of my amendment to prohibit junk fees and make all other fees more transparent to investors. My amendment will make sure that hardworking Americans are safe from undisclosed or unreasonable fees. It will require advanced notice on fees before they are charged to an investor and will make public the amount that financial firms earn from fees. I am sure you can agree that every American should have a right to know what they are paying for, and that is why I am asking for a vote on this amendment. It has been acknowledged by the supporters that they are so pleased for this debate that we are having this evening. They have indicated it is long past due that consumers have this kind of advocacy and that consumers have this kind of support from the Members of Congress who understand the rip-offs and the fraud and the disrespect that they have received for far too long. This amendment is supported by all of those organized unions and advocacy groups that I have spoken about earlier this evening. They all support this amendment as they support the bill that we have been working so hard for. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 225, the HUD Transparency Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative De La Cruz. Oversight is a core function of the Financial Services Committee. Inspectors general also play a critical role in providing transparency about the functions of government, as well as holding government officials accountable. They are able to do this because they are independent of the officials they oversee, and until recently, were only removed for cause. However, since taking office, President Trump has fired over 20 IGs across the government. The majority of these IG firings took place in the first week President Trump took office and violated lawful removal procedures as they came with no warning or rationale. In fact, the Trump administration has kept more than three in four presidentially appointed inspector general positions vacant and without Senate-confirmed leadership. These actions not only silence future IGs but leave the public less informed about critical activities happening across agencies. Dangerously, Trump's actions, combined with Republican House leadership who are unwilling to investigate anything Trump's team does, enable the Trump administration to be entirely unaccountable. Notably, the HUD Inspector General this bill would require to testify before our committee was one of the people Trump arbitrarily fired earlier this year. Since that firing, the acting HUD IG has been replaced again, and there is no one being considered by the Senate for confirmation. As a result, no one in this Chamber knows when our committee will be able to receive this testimony. That said, and while I support this bill, this debate ignores the real and urgent challenges facing HUD and our housing market, and how the President and his administration are actively taking steps to undermine efforts to address the affordable housing crisis. For example, where is the legislation from our Republican colleagues to stop Trump's plan to gut existing permanent supportive housing that could force more than 170,000 people back on the streets? Twenty States and D.C. have already sued HUD citing the plan as chaotic and unlawful. Mr. Speaker, where are their investigations into the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, who is weaponizing the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for politically motivated witch hunts and trying to lock new home buyers into 50-year mortgages? If Republicans wanted to lower housing costs, why aren't they calling to exempt materials like lumber from Trump's tariffs or why aren't we negotiating the ROAD to Housing Act so that it can be included in NDAA and quickly passed into law? Mr. Speaker, the invitation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is open. Join us in finally taking steps to address the rising costs of housing. The American public wants us to lower their bills, and Democrats have numerous ideas about how to do that. Join us in ensuring that the HUD inspector general has the independence to do their job without fear of retaliation when they uncover corruption or abuse of power. We will join Republicans in passing this bill today, but we need to finally get to work to deliver real change for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, HUD plays a vital role in providing safe and affordable housing to families all across the United States. Families depend on HUD's programs to keep a roof over their heads. H.R. 225 would allow Congress and the public to hear directly from an independent oversight authority, provided one is ever confirmed, and offer more transparency into the functions and operations of HUD, especially at a time when Trump's appointees are abusing their power. 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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, given the human rights violations committed by the Burmese leadership, we must ensure that no new funds are disbursed to the government. In line with longstanding U.S. policy, America should urge multilateral institutions like the World Bank to avoid rewarding those who breach international laws and the norms that they should be respecting. 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). He is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Green, for his good work on this bill. H.R. 3716 will ensure that if we have another banking emergency, as we did 2 years ago with several regional banks, and regulators respond by using systemic risk tools, that Congress and the American people promptly receive detailed information from GAO and others on what went wrong and what should be done to promptly fix it. This bill is supported by Americans for Financial Reform and Public Citizen. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Our economy is struggling. People cannot afford groceries and gas. Every day, it seems more and more people are getting laid off. The American Dream is increasingly out of reach. A core engine of our economy has always been the entrepreneurs who take the risk of starting their own company. By implementing key changes to the legal definition of a venture capital fund, H.R. 4429 will make it easier for capital to flow into American small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I 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 H.R. 4431, the Improving Capital Allocation for Newcomers Act of 2025, or ICAN Act, offered by Mr. Timmons and Ms. Pettersen. Like the DEAL Act, the ICAN Act also amends the definition of ``venture capital fund'' under the Investment Company Act. Currently, in order to qualify as a venture capital fund under this act, a private fund must hold $12 million or less in assets and have no more than 250 investors. This bill adjusts those figures upward, raising the cap to $50 million and the investor limit to 500. It also requires the SEC to conduct a study 5 years after enactment to determine the bill's impact on how capital is being allocated to companies owned by these venture funds. Based on the results of the study, the SEC could further adjust the $50 million and 500 beneficial owner limit upward or downward. The ICAN Act should help venture funds to more widely invest in small and growing businesses. Mr. Speaker, I urge all colleagues to support H.R. 4431 to make it easier for capital to flow to startups and small businesses. This bill does so by increasing the dollar size and number of investors for venture funds. Additionally, it requires the SEC to conduct a study that examines how funds are invested across several metrics, including the veteran status of a company's founders, geographical location, and industry sector, size, and state of development. Based on the results of this study, the SEC would be authorized to adjust the bill's limits upward or downward by a tailored amount, if needed. Mr. Speaker, I 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4430, which expands the number of public companies that can qualify as a well-known seasoned issuer, or WKSI. This designation is a special status conferred on companies that frequently raise money by issuing securities from the public. Think of WKSI status like having frequent-flyer privileges. It allows companies that are well known to regulators and the public to raise money without needing permission. These companies are widely followed in the markets, so there are a lot of eyes, so to speak, watching what they are doing. The main requirement for a company to meet WKSI status is that it has previously issued $700 million or more in securities. The current bill would lower that threshold to $400 million. By reducing the current WKSI threshold, the bill allows an additional 400 companies to qualify on top of the 2,000 or so companies that qualify today. One final thing this bill does is provide transparency around companies that have been disqualified from operating as WKSIs. Notably, a company can lose its WKSI status if it has been convicted of a securities-related felony or a misdemeanor or has violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws. Notable examples include UBS and Bank of America, which each previously lost their WKSI status due to fraud violations. However, even if a company loses their status through such a violation, it can ask the SEC for a waiver to continue operating as a WKSI. UBS and Bank of America both sought and received such waivers. Importantly, though, waivers are rarely formally denied because SEC staff normally gives a company a heads-up that their waiver is likely to be denied, so many companies simply withdraw their waiver requests. The final provision of this bill provides investors on an annual basis a view into the number of waiver requests that have been withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and urge all Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I 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. Mr. Speaker, I wish we were here on the House floor this morning debating solutions that would reduce grocery bills, lower housing costs, end Trump's tariffs that are strangling American small businesses and manufacturers, solve the Republican healthcare crisis, or any legislation that allows Americans to afford to live through the catastrophic economic policies of Trump and the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, instead of doing the work that our constituents desperately want us to do, Republicans in the House have chosen once again to advance a resolution under the guise of denouncing ``socialism.'' Let me be clear. This resolution is an embarrassing distraction from the complete and total failure of the Trump administration to deliver actual results for the American people, and the American people see right through it. Sixty-one percent of Americans say that Trump's policies have worsened economic conditions in this country, and 64 percent of Americans say Trump's policies are raising the prices of food and groceries. What is worse is that this very resolution goes further by using the specter of socialism to undermine some of the most important government programs in our country like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare. These are programs that help everyday Americans put food on their plate and care for their children. Republicans absurdly think they can convince Americans these programs that are decades old are leading America toward a Stalinist Russia, even though it is blatantly obvious that the policies of Donald Trump are straight out of a dictator's playbook. Mr. Speaker, the House returned this week from the Trump-Republican shutdown, the longest government shutdown in American history. While House Republicans gave themselves a paid, 2-month vacation, hundreds of thousands of Federal employees were left wondering how they were going to pay their rent or mortgage, and 42 million Americans nearly lost their food assistance. What was the Trump administration doing? Instead of working with Congress to end the shutdown or with local communities to blunt the impacts of the shutdown, it decided to use the full force of the United States Government to make sure these American families went hungry and fought twice in the Supreme Court to block legally available funds from being used to help feed them. It further chipped away at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and fired an entire office dedicated to helping rural and struggling communities, the Community Development Financial Institutions fund. All of this because Republicans want to raise the cost for people with ObamaCare health insurance. Twenty-two million Americans will see their monthly health insurance premiums double, and up to 5 million Americans will likely lose their insurance altogether. Where is the Republican plan? Where is the plan? Where is the plan to deal with all of this? They don't have one because they think keeping healthcare costs low is socialist. If Republicans truly cared about denouncing authoritarian socialism, they would start with the Trump administration. In less than 1 year, the Trump administration has demanded U.S. companies like Intel, U.S. Steel, MP Materials, Lithium Americas, and Trilogy Metals to hand over stock to the U.S. Government. These are capitalist companies who are doing business that they claim this government supports. Trump is also considering forcing Lockheed Martin to do the same. Why are my colleagues, who are so quick to tout their capitalist leans, silent when Trump follows China's communist tactics? The double standard is astounding. This resolution also seeks to condemn atrocities committed by despotic regimes such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, which everyone in this Chamber agrees should be condemned. Somehow, once again, this resolution fails to condemn some of our history's most terrible dictators, like Adolph Hitler and modern-day dictators like Vladimir Putin, who is responsible for killing countless people in Ukraine, or President Xi who basically runs actual concentration camps for ethnic minorities. Why aren't House Republicans denouncing these dictators when we, as Congress, can actually do something to stop it? It is probably because President Trump has said he thinks Putin has done ``a great job,'' and is ``a genius,'' or maybe because he thinks President Xi ``is really a friend of mine.'' In line with these other authoritarian regimes, just this week, Trump said Democrats in the House and Senate had committed ``seditious behavior, punishable by death'' and reposted a post saying: ``hang them.'' We should be working as Congress to denounce these horrific words, not beloved government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Just as those authoritarian regimes are often rife with corruption, the Trump family is also doing everything possible to enrich itself. Since taking office, they have issued their own stablecoins and meme coins and various crypto products, even as Congress was in the middle of considering legislation and regulators were drafting rules. In fact, the Trump family is more than $1 billion richer from crypto alone since Trump took office, and Trump's billionaire buddies have also made fistfuls of money as the rest of America struggles just to put food on the table. The excess is so great that Trump is literally tearing down the White House to build a golden ballroom. He is sending $40 billion to bail out Argentina and his billionaire buddies and has even hosted Great Gatsby- themed parties at Mar-a-Lago. This resolution is a huge waste of time and does absolutely nothing to lower costs or solve any of the problems that our country faces. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. If they keep it up, I am going to name all of the Republicans who took PPP money. Is that socialism? I am going to name them who are taking advantage of other programs that they call socialist. I am going do it if they keep this up. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, for those who are expecting their Social Security checks this month, turn them down if you think that is socialism. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who is also the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans just passed a resolution that gives Senators the right to sue their own government for up to $500,000. Trump is suing the government also. The President of the United States, who controls the Department of Justice, is suing the Department of Justice. He wants to personally get $230 million because he didn't like being investigated, and he wants to get revenge on his enemies. Give me a break. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Listen, instead of debating this pointless resolution, Congress should be focused on how we can reverse the catastrophic economic policies of the Trump administration that have raised costs for everyone. It is estimated that the illegal disastrous tariffs Trump has imposed will amount to an average tax increase of $1,200 in 2025 and $1,600 in 2026 per household and represent the largest U.S. tax increase as a percent of GDP since 1993. Mr. Speaker, not only are Trump's policies raising prices for everyone, they are killing American jobs. Although he campaigned on bringing back manufacturing to the United States, President Trump's tariff policies have killed 42,000 manufacturing jobs. Since the beginning of this year, U.S. employers have eliminated nearly 1.1 million jobs. This past October saw the highest number of layoffs for any October since 2003. Additionally, during the Trump Republican shutdown, Trump fired an entire office at the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund that was dedicated to helping rural and struggling communities. Instead of debating this useless resolution, we should be working to reverse the Trump administration's reckless economic policies that are hurting the American people. Does anyone want to know why Republicans are so scared of the mayor of New York? It is because he wants to lower grocery bills, transportation costs, and housing costs. Republicans know that Trump's policies are the reason costs are so high. Mr. Speaker, the evidence and the facts are right before us about what is happening with this economy. The President of the United States refuses to accept the facts, and he keeps supporting these tariffs. He does not understand how it all works. We are in danger of him because they and him--the President and the Republican Party--simply want to be in control. They love power. The President loves Putin. The President likes Kim Jong Un. He likes having a parade with all of the military to show he is in control. He comes up with policies that give him more power and more control, and he is ignoring the harm that he is doing to this country. Mr. Speaker, I say to all the Members: It is not only about the harm that is coming to urban communities. Those rural communities that are losing their hospitals, that don't have healthcare, and have hungry families who have voted for him are now understanding and are demonstrating that it has been buyer's remorse. When the next election comes, we are going to see what happens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said something about what was happening in New York with the mayor, and he mentioned government-owned grocery stores. First of all, my colleague won't admit that groceries are too high and that families cannot afford the cost of eggs and basic good foods to have great nutrition for their families. By the way, let me remind my colleagues of something. My then-husband was stationed at Camp Carson in Colorado. Mr. Speaker, guess where we got our food? We got our food from government-owned commissaries. They had the best prices, and we had great nutrition. They absolutely supported the families. Who ran them? They were run by the government. I would love the idea of seeing what we can do to reduce the cost of groceries. We already have them in the commissaries. They have price control, and they are heavily subsidized. Let me ask the question: Does this mean we should eliminate them because that is socialism or because the commissaries provide food that is affordable at the bases all over America and the world? Are the fire departments, police departments, schools, and hospitals socialism? I raise the question. Instead of my colleagues taking this time to talk about how we were the cause of the shutdown, when my colleagues know they were, don't deflect it. Come on. Let's talk about socialism. Let's talk about the commissaries. Let's talk about our Social Security. Let's talk about the PPP program and how some of my colleagues got money from their government to put into their businesses. Let's talk about socialism. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to deflect from what is wrong with this administration and what is wrong with the economic policies of this administration. Let's talk about it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.