Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to whether or not the chairman has more speakers?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, given the extreme volatility in the stock markets over the past few weeks, I am particularly troubled by title II of this bill, which would make it easier for high-frequency traders to evade regulatory oversight of their potentially disruptive automated trading algorithms. This provision is widely opposed by nonpartisan consumer and investor advocacy groups who recognize the impact automated trading has on our markets. Let me read for you excerpts from a few letters from these groups that highlight the dangers of title 2. Americans for Financial Reform--a coalition of more than 200 consumer, civil rights, investor, retiree community, labor, faith- based, and business groups--wrote: ``Title II would prevent regulators from inspecting not only their raw source code used in automated trading, but also any related intellectual property that `forms the basis for the design of' source code. Examination of such intellectual property would only be possible in an enforcement context pursuant to a subpoena. This implies that the SEC would have to wait until the damage was done through a `flash crash' or similar market disruption before taking any action, which would have to be retrospective. ``In light of the significance of automated trading to modern markets, and the potential risk of high-frequency trading, it makes no sense to tie the hands of regulators in examining detailed trading strategies and methods of high frequency traders.'' The Center for American Progress cautioned that: ``But in an era of fast-moving, `flash-crash'-prone markets, the SEC may have a wide range of regulatory reasons for why it may need to examine source codes, including approvals of new trading products or the supervision of trading venues. The SEC should only exercise that authority carefully and under the strictest protections for confidential information, but blocking it by law dangerously limits the SEC's ability to address the significant technology-based challenges to financial markets.'' The Consumer Federation of America, an association of nearly 300 consumer advocacy groups, similarly opposed title 2 because it ``would weaken SEC oversight of algorithmic trading and hamstring the agency from responding quickly to flash crashes or other market breakdowns.'' Further, the CFA wrote that: ``At a time when algorithmic trading is taking on increased importance in our capital markets, this bill would make it more difficult for the SEC to properly oversee such trading. ``The bill would require the SEC to first issue a subpoena before it could compel a person to produce or furnish to the SEC algorithmic trading source code or `similar intellectual property.' This would undermine the SEC's examination authority by creating a gaping hole in its ability to gain access to firm records relevant to the examination. It would also have a devastating effect on the agency's ability to respond quickly in the event of another `flash crash' or such events in the future. In order to oversee the markets effectively, the SEC needs to be able to accurately and efficiently reconstruct order entry and trading activity, including for algorithmic traders.'' Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group with over 400,000 members and supporters, wrote: ``Market volatility caused not by real events such as outbreak of a war, but by computers, including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to some innocent investors and erodes general investor confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6, 2010 `Flash Crash,' where markets collapsed by more than $1 trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such a robust and urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a flawed algorithmic at one major trader. SEC oversight should be streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it should be no different for those instructions and records generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable.'' These letters demonstrate the wide opposition to title II by groups that truly understand that robust oversight of algorithmic trading is necessary for the help of our makers. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters from these groups. February 13, 2018. Please vote NO on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978. Hon. Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Hon. Member: On behalf of more than 400,000 members and supporters of Public Citizen, we ask you to vote NO on H.R. 3299 and H.R. 3978, which are expected to be considered by the full House on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Provisions in these bills would expose borrowers to abusive loans, investors to dubious securities, and Americans generally to a riskier financial system. H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017, would allow predatory lenders to escape state limits on high interest rates. The bill would nullify the Second Circuit Court ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding. That decision provided that a financial institution that buys loans originated by a national bank could not benefit from the National Bank Act's preemption of state interest rate caps. While the Madden decision did not limit interest rates that banks charge on credit, it does limit nonbanks from evading state interest rate caps. This bill would pave the way for payday lenders, financial technology (fintech) companies and others to exploit that loophole and use a ``rent-a-bank'' arrangement in order to charge high interest rates. Twenty state Attorneys General have written to oppose this measure, noting that it undermines their efforts to protect borrowers from abusive loan rates. We urge you to oppose this bill. H.R. 3978, the TRID Improvement Act of 2017, is actually a package of bills that were considered separately in the House Financial Services Committee. One of these is the Financial Stability Oversight Council Improvement Act (formerly H.R. 4061). This measure would add numerous procedural requirements for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) when it considers the designation or continued designation of a nonbank firm as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI). Current rules already make SIFI designation a high hurdle. The case of MetLife, for example, shows that firms enjoy more than ample methods to contest designation. After FSOC designated MetLife as systemically important, it contested it in court and the case is pending. Increasing the government's burden for designation would restrict its ability to apply enhanced supervision to major institutions. However, the largest bailout of the 2008 financial crash went to AIG, a nonbank engaged in reckless derivatives activity beyond the purview of banking supervisors. We oppose this measure. Another bill contained in H.R. 3978 is the Fostering Innovation Act (previously H.R. 1645). This bill amends Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) law by increasing from five to 10 years the time that CEOs of firms with less than $50 million in revenue must attest to the accuracy of their financial reporting. Congress approved SOX in response to the accounting scandals at the turn of the millennium. The rules are designed to promote accounting accuracy to the shareholders who have entrusted their savings to these firms. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that companies with inferior financial reporting controls have a significantly higher likelihood of issuing a restatement of their financial accounts. Firms that are unwilling to oblige SOX should not be trusted with the capital of savers. Extending the CEO attestation requirement from five to 10 years exacerbates the problem. From an investor perspective, accounting safeguards are more important for smaller companies, since larger companies generally attract a larger and more sophisticated base of stock and bond holders who can perform effective oversight. We oppose this measure. A third bill that is part of the H.R. 3978 package is the National Securities Exchange Regulatory Parity Act (formerly H.R. 4546). This bill would eliminate state supervision of securities if they are listed on an exchange, even if the exchange has reduced standards compared with those of major exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange. Under current law, state supervision is pre-empted only if the security is listed on exchanges with rules overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Rules may differ between exchanges, but they must be approved by the SEC to ensure that they prevent fraud, serve the public interest and protect investors. Moreover, exchanges must adopt and enforce rules that are ``substantially similar'' to the major exchanges, known formally as ``Named Markets,'' under current law. The existing system deters a race to the bottom, where an exchange may attempt to attract companies with weaker rules. Conversely, this bill would actually promote that race to the bottom by removing the requirement that the exchange adopt rules that are substantially similar to those of the Named Markets. We oppose this measure. A fourth measure in H.R. 3978 is the Protection of Source Code Act, (formerly H.R. 3948). This measure would impede the ability of the SEC to conduct effective compliance examinations of market volatility involving computer-driven algorithms. The bill imposes a strict subpoena requirement before staff could inspect otherwise routine business records that involve source code. Market volatility caused not by real events such as the outbreak of a war, but by computers, including computer glitches, threatens to erase savings to some innocent investors and erodes general investor confidence. The recent swings in the markets attest to the need for robust and urgent supervisory inspection. The May 6, 2010 ``Flash Crash,'' where markets collapsed by more than $1 trillion in less than an hour, revealed that such robust and urgent supervision has been lacking. The SEC required nearly a half year to investigate this incident before identifying a flawed algorithm at one major trader. SEC oversight should be streamlined, not hampered. Trading instructions and records of human traders are already subject to inspection, so it should be no different for those instructions and records generated by a machine. Hiding source code from regulatory scrutiny will leave those responsible for mistakes as well as those attempting to manipulate markets unaccountable. We oppose this measure. Because of our opposition to these elements in H.R. 3978 and to H.R. 3299 we urge you to vote NO on these bills. As we are marking the 10th anniversary of the Wall Street Crash, it's clear that American consumers and investors deserve stronger financial reforms, not weakened protections that will make our economy more susceptible to another collapse. Thank you for your consideration. For questions, please contact Bartlett Naylor. Sincerely, Public Citizen.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3299, or the so- called Protecting Consumers' Access to Credit Act of 2017. There is a good reason over 200 civil rights, consumer, faith-based, housing, labor, and veterans advocacy organizations oppose this bill. The type of credit that this bill helps consumers access is the kind that makes it easier for vulnerable consumers to sink into insurmountable debt like payday and other high-cost loans. H.R. 3299 expands the ability of nonbanks to preempt State-level consumer protections by stating that the interest rate on any loan originated by a national bank that is subsequently transferred to a third party, no matter how quickly after it is originated, is enforceable, which incentivizes riskier and predatory lending. H.R. 3299 advances a dangerous precedent by allowing third parties that purchase loans from national banks to collect on interest rates that would otherwise be illegal because they exceed State caps. Now, this bill is an attempt to overturn a court decision related to the legal concept of ``valid when made'' from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC. In that case, the court held that, when loans are transferred from banks to nonbank third parties, they must maintain the same terms, rates, and conditions as required by the State where the originating bank is chartered. Despite claims by proponents of the bill, legal experts have explained in testimony that ``the valid-when-made doctrine is a modern invention, not a cornerstone of U.S. banking law.'' The Madden decision is only the rule of law in the States under the Second Circuit, which are Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Some industry advocates, particularly marketplace lender fintechs, have argued the ruling and confusion about valid when made caused such great market ambiguity that it has resulted in reduced lending to needy borrowers in those States, but those claims have not been substantiated. The only purported evidence we have on the effect of the Madden rule is a single, unpublished study that cannot even be peer-reviewed because it relies on private data from a single, unidentified marketplace lender, and the authors of that study have not endorsed this bill. In addition, 20 State attorneys general, including the attorneys general for all three States under the Second Circuit, oppose this legislative change. But do you know what? Predatory lenders are worried about the Madden case for a different reason. Elevate, an online payday lender, is afraid that they won't be able to continue making predatory loans if the Madden decision stays in place. In their public filings with the SEC, Elevate said: To the extent that the holdings in Madden were broadened to cover circumstances applicable to Elevate's business or if other litigation on related theories were brought against us and were successful, we could become subject to State usury limits and State licensing laws in addition to the State consumer protection laws to which we are already subject. In a greater number of States, loans in such States could be deemed void and unenforceable, and we would be subject to substantial penalties in connection with such loans. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the good actors that may be trying to navigate a difficulty the Madden ruling potentially caused, but this is not just about those businesses, because H.R. 3299 would go much further to allow other third parties, including payday lenders, to evade or outright disregard State-level laws and collect debt from borrowers at unreasonably high rates of interest if they purchase loans from a national bank. These arrangements are called rent-a-bank or rent-a-charter agreements, and they allow payday lenders to use banks as a front for predatory behavior and the evasion of State interest rate caps. Payday loans drain wealth from low-income consumers, particularly those in communities of color, and payday loans trap their borrowers into a cycle of debt that it takes years to climb out of with high interest rates that are often in excess of 300 percent. So let's be clear. Instead of simply overturning the Madden decision, H.R. 3299 would go far beyond that and codify an expanded preemption power without any proof that it will benefit consumers. In fact, all we do know is that the bill will make it easier for bad actors to evade safeguards that States have put in place to protect borrowers. We cannot advance a bill that will allow nonbanks like payday lenders to ignore State interest rate caps and make high-rate loans. While Congress has preempted some State laws for national banks, it did not authorize national banks to extend the privilege to whatever entities they so choose. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There was a reference to Senator Warner, and he said that the Madden fix bill must address the payday lender loophole. I alluded to some of this kind of thinking about those who may have supported the bill without really giving a lot of thought to this loophole, but I just want you to know that even the author of the bill, Senator Warner, is saying that the Madden fix bill must address payday lender loopholes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3299 is ultimately a bill that would make it easier for bad actors to get around interest rate caps that States have put into place to protect borrowers from predator payday pit traps. Let's be clear: the availability of affordable credit is very important in every community, and we should work together in ways to make sure that underserved communities have fair access to credit and banking services. But measures like H.R. 3299 do not productively advance that goal. In fact, the bill would do the opposite. It would open the door for nonbanks to ignore States' strong protections and make loans with high interest rates. The bill would usher in a wave of harmful, high-cost payday loans in States where such loans were previously disallowed. Let's not forget that last month Mick Mulvaney, who President Trump illegally appointed to serve as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, directed the Consumer Bureau to reconsider its sensible and much-needed rule on payday vehicle title and certain high-cost installment loans. That rule, put in place under the leadership of Richard Cordray, would require payday lenders to ensure that consumers can actually afford to pay off their loans. Essentially, Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney are helping out payday lenders by undermining the Consumer Bureau's rule as well as rolling back and undermining many of the other critical protections put in place by Democrats in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On top of his pull to reconsider the payday rule, Mulvaney has also drawn a Consumer Bureau lawsuit against a group of payday lenders who allegedly failed to disclose the true cost of loans which had interest rates as high as 950 percent a year. Mr. Speaker, Congress should be standing up for and enhancing protections for consumers, not legislating to make it easier for hardworking Americans to be drawn into payday debt traps. H.R. 3299 is widely opposed by over 200 consumer and civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Consumer Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others. And so I think it is clear what we are advocating on this side of the aisle. We are simply saying that we should not create this loophole, that we should understand the struggle that many of us have been in to try and keep payday lenders from going into the most vulnerable neighborhoods, targeting the most vulnerable people, taking advantage of folks who have no place to turn and who need a few dollars until payday, taking advantage of them and trapping them into these loans and creating all of this debt for them. This would just go a long way to continue that kind of madness, and so I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the other side wants. They want $5 billion at one point, they want $10 billion at one point, and now they want $3 billion. They just throw it up against the wall and hope something sticks, and we are saying: Don't put these community banks at risk. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Okay. So we have heard it again. We hate Dodd-Frank. We hate Dodd- Frank. We hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We don't believe that Dodd-Frank should have created the reforms that they did. Just forget about the fact that there was a subprime meltdown in 2008, that this country went into a recession, almost a depression. Throw all of that out of the window. Forget about what was happening when the big banks failed and we bailed them all out. Forget about reforms. Oh, how much we hate Dodd-Frank. We just blame Dodd-Frank for everything. Please. I think that, as credible legislators, we are beyond the point of wrapping up everything that we don't like and accusing Dodd- Frank reforms for causing problems to everything and everybody, including the community banks. The fact of the matter is, if we want to strengthen, preserve, and make sure community banks are available to our communities, we won't take on public policy that would put them at risk with having more debt than they can take care of, and we won't put them at risk of being bought up and these mergers taking place. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Democrats support targeted, measured relief for our community financial institutions. We recognize that these smaller banks and credit unions intimately know their communities and how best to serve them. But we also know that changes to the rules that are designed to ensure that community banks are safe and sound can have unintended consequences. While community banks did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, they were at the center of another crisis just two decades before. When I came to the Financial Services Committee, thousands of savings and loan holding companies were failing and causing serious harm to the communities they were supposed to serve. This was due, in part, to the fact that lawmakers thought it was wise to weaken safeguards on these savings and loan holding companies, allowing them to take on more leverage and offer riskier products. I fear that Congress will again pass legislation today that will ultimately cause harm to both the very community banks we want to help and the hardworking Americans that rely on them. And now, Republicans are trying to raise the threshold as high as possible. In the chairman's ``Wrong Choice Act,'' he would raise the threshold tenfold, to $10 billion. At the end of last Congress, Republicans sought to raise it to $5 billion. A few months ago, the Trump administration recommended raising it to $2 billion, and now, a little less than 3 years after we reached a bipartisan compromise, we are inexplicably considering legislation to raise it to $3 billion. I tried to tell you just a few moments ago, they don't know. They are just throwing it up against the wall: whatever we can get. Next they will be asking for $20 billion. No, you have moved away from $10 billion; you have moved away from $5 billion; now you are at $3 billion. Your President wants $2 billion. We say, leave it as it is. Mr. Speaker, if you are listening to this and feeling dizzy, it is understandable. None of these levels are backed by the same careful consideration Congress gave to the threshold 2 years ago, and I am afraid it is exactly the kind of legislating that set the groundwork for the savings and loan crisis and left thousands of communities without access to banking services. When I came on, Members of Congress were fleeing the old Banking Committee. They wanted to get out of there because they had been responsible for public policy that had put the S&L business at risk, and now that was all failing. They were fleeing it, and they were punishing people, all the new Members coming on, and making them go on this committee because they knew that they had nobody else to serve on it. So I have been there. I have seen it. I have experienced it. I am a part of Dodd-Frank reforms. I served on the conference committee. I worked with Dodd. I worked with Frank. I know what we should be doing. Before I close, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill and many of the other one-off financial services bills Republicans are pushing should really be viewed as setting the table for the dangerous deregulatory package making it through the Senate. That package, which our committee has not even considered to thoroughly understand the interactions of all the rollbacks it contains, weakens oversight of Wall Street and the Nation's largest banks under the guise of community bank relief. H.R. 4771 is one of the many provisions in the Senate bill that, when taken together, will risk further bailouts and harm homeownership in America. Every time this House passes another provision of that bigger bill, we make it more likely that critical safeguards and protections will be eviscerated at the expense of our Nation's homeowners and consumers. I urge all Members to soundly reject H.R. 4771 today and to reject the larger Senate legislation if it comes to the House. I comfortably say, despite the fact that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are trying to frame this in a certain way, they really don't know what they are doing. Reject this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand the support that community banks have gotten from this side of the aisle. I know that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, oftentimes, advance the argument that they are the only ones who care about community banks and that we don't understand community banks. And, oftentimes, they have arguments that basically would have one conclude that we don't really advance the cause of community banks. I would just like to remind my colleagues in this Congress of the work that we have done in support of community banks. We have supported, and successfully supported, less frequent exams for well- rated community banks with less than $1 billion. The exam cycle is now 18 months instead of 12 months for these strong small banks. We took into consideration the concerns of community banks about the examiners coming too often, disturbing the banks, oftentimes, tying up the personnel in the bank. So we agreed to not have them come in every 12 months and to extend that so that 18 months will give some relief to the community banks so that they don't have to deal with the auditors in such a way that disturbs the bank. We also moved successfully to eliminate an annual privacy notice for community banks and credit unions whose policies have not changed and the consumer has already notified. Well, we did that. We eliminated these annual privacy notices for the community banks and for credit unions who have not changed their policies, and there is no need to have to continue to insist that they have these annual privacy notices. Well, we went further with less stringent SEC registration rules for small thrifts, providing parity with other banks; and access to credit for privately insured credit unions, allowing them to join the Federal Home Loan Banks program; improving mortgage licensing for community banks and credit unions by allowing regulator access to the nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry, while maintaining confidentiality protections. I just cite this because it is so important to understand what we have done on this side of the aisle to ensure that our community banks are strong, that they are there for our communities, that they provide the loans, that they assist in developing our communities. What we don't understand oftentimes is why our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in the name of community banks, will come with proposals that hurt community banks. We have pointed out that our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have gone so far as to try and get everyone to believe that we should increase this amount of debt that they could carry up to $10 billion. That is totally irresponsible, totally. And even when they attempted to go to $5 billion, totally irresponsible, down to $3 billion, because I guess they just say: Well, we have to try to get some more opportunities for small banks to carry this debt. Well, they don't answer the question about what happens when these small community banks are burdened with debt that they cannot take care of, that they cannot pay. They don't talk about the fact that that is going to cause the community bank to close. And they certainly don't talk about putting them in a position where they will be brought up. So I would simply say for those of us who have proven our support for community banks and who continue to engage with community banks about what we can do to ensure their strength, to ensure that they are there to provide the loans in the neighborhoods and in the communities that they serve, I think we have identified ourselves and we have defined ourselves. We would simply ask those who are listening to this debate to continue to know and understand what is happening between these different sides of the aisle, to look at what we have done, and to understand how we have been helpful in our support for community banks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018. This bill is another Republican-led measure to roll back appropriately tailored policies to regulate the financial services sector that ignores the hard-learned lessons of the catastrophic 2008 financial crisis. We have seen this same flawed approach in H.R. 10, which I called the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' last year, and we are seeing it again in the Senate as it considers advancing Senator Crapo's Wall Street giveaway, which includes a provision identical to the bill that we are considering today, along with several other harmful provisions. The Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was first issued in 1980 to enable the transfer of ownership of small community banks by allowing small, noncomplex bank holding companies to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted. The original policy statement established a threshold of bank holding companies with less than $150 million in assets, but this level was increased to $500 million in 2006. The policy statement allows certain small bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies to hold more debt at the holding company level than would otherwise be allowed by capital requirements if the debt is used to finance up to 75 percent of an acquisition of another bank. Put another way, the policy statement is important because it allows small institutions like community banks and minority- owned insured depository institutions to access additional debt so they can continue serving their communities without compromising bank safety and soundness. Thus, it is important that the threshold level be carefully calibrated so it cannot be abused by speculative investors. If the threshold is raised too high, it will encourage more mergers and acquisitions, riskier banking activities, and reduced banking services and credit availability to rural, low-income, minority, and underserved communities. In 2014, Democrats worked with Republicans to examine this threshold and reached a reasonable compromise to raise the threshold to $1 billion. This change was implemented only after closely consulting with regulators to determine the appropriate threshold level to help community banks grow without making them targets for mergers and acquisitions. The $1 billion threshold is sensible and reasonable in light of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's exhaustive study several years ago on the definition of ``community bank.'' While the FDIC factors in other considerations, their definition of a community bank includes a dollar threshold of banks with less than $1 billion in assets. According to 2016 data from the Federal Reserve, 87 percent of all bank holding companies are covered by the current $1 billion threshold. This means that a large majority of the industry currently benefits from the adjusted 2014 threshold increase in the policy statement, including all truly small community banks. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the bipartisan compromise reached in 2014 included other important safeguards, such as excluding any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with less than $1 billion that are engaged in significant nonbanking activities. It also gives the Federal Reserve the ability to exclude any bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies from the policy statement, regardless of size, if it concludes that the exclusion is warranted for supervisory purposes. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not hesitated to try and push the threshold higher. Last Congress, just a little more than a year after a bipartisan compromise to increase the threshold, Republicans pushed through the House another bill, H.R. 3791, that would have significantly increased the threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion. That bill faced a veto threat from the Obama administration, as it should have, and it went nowhere in the Senate. Last year, Chairman Hensarling included a provision in H.R. 10, the ``Wrong Choice Act,'' to drastically raise the $1 billion threshold to $10 billion. Because the Senate now appears set to move a bill that raises the threshold, but to nowhere near that level, we now find ourselves back on the floor of the House today considering a new bill to triple the threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion. While it is a slightly less drastic increase than the one in the bill Republicans pushed through the House last Congress, tripling the policy statement threshold to $3 billion so soon since the last threshold increase is still unwise. There simply has not been sufficient time to see what effect doubling the policy statement threshold from $500 million to $1 billion really means for community banks. Congress should at least examine the data and understand the effects of the last change before making another one. We should not ignore the concerns raised by experts that this approach will allow small banks to take on more debt than they otherwise need and may actually promote mergers and acquisitions so that we have fewer community banks, not more. While Republicans push bills like H.R. 4771 in the name of helping community banks, this is yet another proposal that would likely result in fewer, not more, community banks. Even the Treasury Department under this President, President Trump, only recommended raising the threshold to $2 billion. So they are $1 billion even beyond what the President supports. That was in a report issued last year. As I mentioned, H.R. 4771 is one of the many harmful provisions in Senator Crapo's financial deregulatory bill that is advanced in the Senate. Senator Crapo's bill also includes many other harmful rollbacks that would fundamentally weaken our framework. It would roll back certain stress testing requirements for megabanks like Wells Fargo and would exempt or weaken enhanced standards for many of the large banks in the country. The Senate bill also would gut rules for foreign banks like Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse. It would also eliminate a requirement that many banks collect and publicly report critical Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, data. HMDA data is used for many important policy purposes, including to identify mortgage lending discrimination against many Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups. I could go on and on, but the list is longer than the time that we have allotted. The bottom line is I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4771 and the other efforts by congressional Republicans and this administration to deregulate Wall Street and the banking industry and roll back the clock to a time not long ago when we had weak oversight and few safeguards that protect consumers, investors, and taxpayers. You can see what is happening. At one point, the opposite side of the aisle said: ``Let's jump to $5 billion.'' And then, Mr. Hensarling said: ``No, let's jump to $10 billion.'' This is done without any thought or consideration for what they are doing and the risks that they are placing on these little banks to be bought up and the mergers to take place. You can see there is no real thought, no real review, no real consideration given when you say: ``Let's go from $1 billion to $3 billion to $5 billion to $10 billion, whatever we can get.'' We are saying: ``No, that is wrong. Don't do that. Don't do that to these community banks.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle that the community banks with $1 billion to $5 billion in assets already have sufficient access to capital markets and, as a group, are exhibiting help and resilience. Raising a threshold to exempt banks with over $1 billion from important minimum leverage and capital requirements will do little more than encourage banks to take on debt--as I have reminded you time and time again today--endangering their soundness and potentially depriving their customers of much-needed banking services should the bank fail. Setting the consolidated assets threshold at $1 billion was a bipartisan decision that struck a balance between allowing small banks to access capital to better serve their customers and ensuring their safety and soundness. Raising the threshold would be an unnecessary and risky change. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Allow me to just say that we continue on this most important legislation, H.R. 1153, and we have had the opportunity to yield time to Leader Pelosi, and while she certainly came in to oppose this bill that we have before us, having yielded 1 minute to the leader is the most profound 1 minute probably in the history of this institution, that 1 minute that ended up 8 hours where Leader Pelosi talked about the plight of DACA and the DREAMers. And I am very proud that in yielding that 1 minute we had the opportunity to listen to Leader Pelosi deal with an issue and demand that we have an opportunity to have a real debate and a real discussion in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we had that opportunity, and now let me just say, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, American consumers are under attack by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress every day. We learn about either another effort to weaken guardrails, protecting consumers from predatory actors, or another Trump appointee refusing to hold bad actors accountable. Trump supporters at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission have basically stopped enforcing our Nation's consumer and security laws. Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a lot of excitement here because of what took place in the last 8 hours, so I don't feel interrupted at all. I just feel very, very pleased that we had the opportunity to have that speech by our leader. However, I will just continue. Let me just get to the fact that, again, Mick Mulvaney, whom Trump unlawfully appointed as Acting Director of the Consumer Bureau, is gutting the Consumer Bureau's Office of Fair Lending Equal Opportunity limiting the Consumer Bureau's ability to stop bad actors from discriminating against communities of color. News reports also suggest that Mulvaney has slowed down the Consumer Bureau's investigation of Wells Fargo, the ultimate example of a recidivist megabank. Wells Fargo has publicly admitted to ripping off millions of Americans with fraudulent checking accounts, credit cards, forced-placed auto insurance, and much, much more. But the Trump administration has a partner in its efforts to undermine consumer protections. House Republicans have been in lockstep with the President when it comes to rolling back consumer protections. Take the Consumer Bureau's rule on forced arbitration: Wall Street lobbied hard against this rule, and instead of putting consumers first, House Republicans passed a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a rule that would have helped consumers who have been wronged by the big banks to join together to hold them accountable. But that is just one example of how House Republicans have tried to undermine consumer laws. For years now, they have tried to cut the funding of the Consumer Bureau or to change its structure, and having failed in those attempts, they now have their inside man, Mick Mulvaney, who is working to destroy the Bureau from within. We shouldn't be surprised since the chairman of the Financial Services Committee has said he wants to ``financially terminate'' the Consumer Bureau. The bill before us today should be viewed as one part of this long line of attempts by my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to undermine the fundamental consumer protection. Home buyers should not be gouged or swindled just because they want to own a home. H.R. 1153 would legitimize predatory kickbacks through affiliated firms. Megabanks, including bad actors like Wells Fargo, and other lenders would be incentivized to steer their borrowers into more costly products simply because they can. H.R. 1153 is a bad bill that will only line the pockets of Wall Street with the hard-earned savings of Main Street. But don't just take my word for it. Civil rights groups and consumer advocates all agree that this is bad for America. So, despite all of the excitement that we have had here on the floor today with Leader Pelosi and the message that she brought to this Congress, I want all of our Members to simply reject President Trump's and House Republicans' attack on consumers. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1153 and support Leader Pelosi in calling for a debate in this House on the issue dealing with DACA and the DREAMers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I cannot understand why my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would be in support of anything that would cause a home buyer to have to pay more money in fees when they are taking out a mortgage. On a $400,000 mortgage, you are talking about you want to go beyond a $12,000 cap, which is 3 percent? Why would you want to do that to a homeowner? What we are saying is, under QM and what we worked so hard to establish, was to put a cap on all of these fees so that the homeowners, the home buyers, would not be paying more than 3 percent of that mortgage. We think that is fair. Now you want to open up the flood gates so that these title companies can increase the amount of that they are charging and go beyond the 3 percent. How much higher do you want it to go? Do you want them to be able to go up to 4 percent or 5 percent with these homeowners who are paying downpayments and who are trying to get into homes? Why is it you want to expand beyond a 3 percent cap on the average hardworking home buyer in this country? I don't get it. I don't understand it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the chairman. He said that RESPA prohibits kickbacks. While RESPA prohibits paying kickbacks to third-party title agencies, the law does not prohibit payments to affiliated title firms. This incentivizes a title agency to be affiliated so it can gain the payment option without violating RESPA, including affiliated title insurance fees in the QM defines points and fees caps, provides important market pressure to control costs for consumers, and supports access to credits. By the way, when we talk about RESPA, we are talking about the real estate settlement procedures that define all of this. So let's be clear again that, while RESPA prohibits paying kickbacks to third-party title agents, the law does not prohibit payments to affiliated title firms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't think I heard my colleague correctly when he said that this bill had something to do with encouraging first-time home buyers. It has nothing to do with encouraging first-time home buyers. As a matter of fact, if we proceed with this bill that is before us today that they are supporting, it will discourage first-time home buyers and home buyers in general because what they are doing is they are increasing the possibility for more points and fees that have to be paid when we have a cap now at 3 percent, which any reasonable person would know makes good sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary achievement of Elon Musk and SpaceX for the spectacular and historic launch of its giant Falcon Heavy rocket, now the world's most powerful operational rocket, from Cape Canaveral on Tuesday, February 6, 2018. Besides the launch itself, which carried Mr. Musk's personal Tesla Roadster into space, SpaceX also achieved a second amazing feat by guiding two of the Falcon Heavy's rocket boosters back to Earth for an upright landing. This rocket launch has paved the way for faster, cheaper launches of satellites and cargo into space. So, as the representative of California's 43rd Congressional District, this milestone is especially meaningful to me. SpaceX is headquartered in my district in the city of Hawthorne, California, and employs thousands of talented men and women in our community. I congratulate Elon Musk and SpaceX for continuing the great tradition of achievement by aerospace companies in the South Bay.