Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Are they more dangerous than the missiles from North Korea?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us now, H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, represents what the Republican majority has become very good at doing, advancing bad public policy while claiming to advance the public interest. H.R. 1638, the Iranian Leadership Asset Transparency Act, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the estimated total assets under direct or indirect control of certain senior Iranian leaders and other figures, along with a description of how these assets were acquired and are employed, regardless of whether such individuals are subject to U.S. sanctions. Although increasing transparency into corrupt regimes is a laudable goal, H.R. 1638 works counter not only to its own stated objectives, but also U.S. national security interests. First, the level of scrutiny that would be needed to produce a credible report would place a very real strain on the Treasury Department, diverting significant resources away from Treasury investigators who are tasked with targeting conduct that is actually sanctionable; implementing existing U.S. sanction programs; and uncovering illicit conduct across the globe, including, importantly, efforts to identify the web of business interests that continue to enable North Korea to evade U.S. and international sanctions. In addition to diverting scarce and critical resources, the bill's required report will have little use as a compliance tool, given that the most important parts would be classified, undercutting the legislation's own stated objective to help make financial institutions' required compliance with remaining sanctions more easily understood. In fact, the creation of such a list, which would not be tied to any prohibition or legal action, would more than likely create confusion among the Office of Foreign Assets Control's regulated public and also mislead companies to believe that the Treasury list replaces the due diligence efforts that they should otherwise be doing prior to engaging in business in Iran. Moreover, because the report would be largely classified, the bill would do little to draw the Iranian public's attention to the corruption and unjust enrichment of their leaders, which is another stated purpose of the bill. In fact, any classified portion would inevitably be rejected by both the Iran regime and its people as U.S. propaganda, and a predictable attack on the country's government by the United States. The true purpose of this legislation is to create reputational risk for companies that might seek to do legitimate business with Iran. For this reason, the bill would be a strategic mistake, as its report would undoubtedly be seized upon by Iran as an intentional effort to discourage international investment in Iran, which would be viewed by Iran and likely by the major world powers who joined us in the JCPOA as well as a violation of the expressed U.S. commitment under the nuclear deal not to interfere with the full realization of the relief provided to Iran under the accord. When a nearly identical version of this bill was considered last Congress, the Obama White House threatened to veto the bill, stating that it would, ``endanger our ability to ensure Iran's nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.'' Moreover, the Obama administration cautioned that the report called for in the bill would also compromise critical intelligence sources and methods. On that score, I would also note that the reporting requirement in the legislation calls for information about how sanctions evasion and illicit conduct is practiced, and potential countermeasures. It seems far from prudent to give tips to our adversaries about how we learn about their misconduct and how we plan to respond. This legislation would have very limited practical utility, despite the huge diversion of resources it would take to produce. It also fails to meet its own stated objectives, including serving any usefulness as a compliance tool. Finally, the measure would also likely have a negative impact on the continued viability of the nuclear deal, which is clearly a central objective. I am hard-pressed to think of a single piece of legislation that works so strongly against every single policy goal it claims to advance. Few issues are more important to global peace and security than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This bill would do nothing to advance that goal. In fact, if enacted, it could do grave damage to the important progress that has been made. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I said: The missiles that he is referring to, that he is concerned about with Iran, that are not a part of the plan, are they similar to the ballistic missiles that are being fired from North Korea with nuclear warheads possibly on them?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Reclaiming my time, we know that there are individuals who are sanctionable in the deal. What I thought you were attempting to do is to expand that and to identify more leaders and try and understand where the assets come from, what they use them for, whether or not they are involved in money laundering. But the gentleman said it had nothing to do with the deal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this bill not because we are not concerned about the security of our country and security of our allies in the Middle East. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle don't care any more than we care, but we respect when our leadership and our country gets involved and negotiates with another country, such as they have done with Iran, and they come to some agreements. We would like our country to live up to the agreement. When we have included in that agreement a description of the monitoring that will be done, and when that monitoring is being carried out, and when it is represented to us by those that we have in charge of that monitoring that that country, Iran, is in compliance, we believe them. And when we trust our negotiators, when we trust our country, when we trust our leadership, and Iran is in compliance, there is no reason to try and undo the deal. There is no reason to come behind the agreement and what has been negotiated and begin to think of ways that they believe we ought to expand that agreement. We could, in the Congress of the United States, come up with a new idea every day. With all of the Members of this House, with all of the different thoughts and, possibly, ideas, and everybody thinking they are smarter than everybody else, we could come up with all kinds of plans to interfere with that agreement. But I would advise the Members of this House and the Members on the opposite side of the aisle that they do not need to do this. This is a bad idea. I would advise them to put faith in the negotiations that have gone on and to accept the representations about compliance that we are being given. We are being assured that not only is the monitoring taking place, but Iran is in compliance. So, again, I am so worried about our role in this country today and the fact that our leadership is being diminished day by day because of the way that our President and the White House is handling our relationships with other countries. As a matter of fact, we see a President that is endangering us and destroying relationships constantly. I mention that we have in this deal Russia, China, Germany, England, and France. I asked the question: What are our allies in this agreement saying about our attempts to interfere with the agreement? Do they agree with them? Are they consulted? Are they unhappy about what is being done? I suppose they could do the same in their countries every day. They could come up with new ways to interfere with the agreement. They could begin to ask questions about us and why we are doing what we are doing. They could even ask questions about why are we concerned about the assets of those who are not sanctionable when we are not concerned about the assets of our own President. Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Poliquin's bill. He wants to know about the assets of leaders in Iran. Has he seen his President's tax returns? Does he know about his assets? Does he know about where they have come from? Does he know about how they are utilized? I don't think so. So I think it is very, very important for us to do everything that we can to have our allies trust us, to live up to the deals that we make, not to ask more of others than we are willing to do ourselves, no. We are not sponsors of terrorism. We are a people who have always tried to avoid war. Unfortunately, we have engaged in it, and we know that it is not the best answer to trying to deal with the problems that we encounter around the world. I do believe that we honestly try to avoid war and that we work for peace. This is working for peace, and peace in the Middle East is one of the most important goals that we should have. I see the opportunities for that eroding every day. So I would ask Mr. Poliquin to think about what he is doing. I believe that his intentions are good, but I think it is a bad bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is not needed. I think it creates problems with our allies, and they begin to wonder whether or not they can trust us. We are an honorable people and we are leaders in the world, even though it is being questioned more and more. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. On October 13, 2017, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency--that is, the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog that, since January 2016, has been monitoring and verifying Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments--released a statement noting that, ``At present, Iran is subject to the world's most robust nuclear verification regime,'' confirming that Iran remains in compliance with its JCPOA commitments. The same day, President Trump announced that he had refused to certify the national security value of the Iran nuclear deal, which gave Congress 60 days to fatally undermine the agreement by re- introducing some or all of the suspended sanctions; although, Congress did not do so. Despite the fact that the President did not withdraw from the nuclear accord, his disdain for the agreement has always been clear. In a highly confrontational speech, President Trump forcefully denounced the Islamic republic and attacked the deal for failing to curb Iran's destabilizing regional activities, despite the fact the accord was never meant to address every aspect of Iran's maligned activities. It was always intended to focus on Iran's nuclear program. As an arms control agreement, the deal has, so far, been successful. Trump has threatened to upend the nuclear deal unless Congress amends it to make its terms more restrictive. The President is looking to find any rationale he can to walk away from the deal without having to take the blame. This legislation is precisely what he has been looking for. But American unilateralism, at this point, would be a disaster and would make forging a common front against Iran nearly impossible in the future. That is one way of ensuring failure at the outset of a diplomatic effort to pursue a new multilateral agreement, would be to violate an existing one with the same partners. The President's insistence on renegotiating the JCPOA to extend the duration of several of its constraints make inspections more intrusive and expand its coverage to missiles. It is dangerous and unrealistic, given that every other signatory of the agreement has objected to changing its terms while Iran remains compliant. If Congress passes this bill, it would give the administration the path it needs to rip up the nuclear card without the constraints placed on Iran by the deal. The administration's hostile attitude towards Iran and stark absence of diplomacy will inevitably put the United States on a path of escalation with Iraq. There is an obvious link with North Korea here as well. Hopefully, at some point, the President may determine that diplomacy has a role in managing the North Korean nuclear missile challenges. But America's ability to offer a credible, diplomatic path will be seriously undermined if we cannot be trusted to stand by our agreement dealing with Iran to destabilize regional activities. Its ambition to remake large swaths of the Middle East in its image entails a broad range of challenges. Without the JCPOA, however, those challenges become even more daunting. I urge my colleagues not to give up on our best chance of containing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons through peaceful means and to join me in rejecting this terrible bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I thank both of the Members of Congress who came down here this evening and shared in the information that we are going to forward to Rod Rosenstein because it is so important that we let him know that our special counsel has support. We appreciate what he is doing and we are going to stand with him. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield to Representative Jackson Lee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, for the past several days, there has been an organized attempt to discredit and undermine the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I rise today to speak on behalf of many Members of Congress who believe Special Counsel Mueller is doing a great job. At this time, I am circulating a letter, and other Members of Congress are joining me. This is a letter of support for Special Counsel Mueller urging that he not be interfered with and that he is allowed to continue this very important investigation in the interest of the security of our country. I will be circulating this letter for another 24 hours. However, at this time, I would like to read the contents of the letter into the Record. This, again, is a letter in support of Special Counsel Mueller. The letter is addressed to the Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice. The letter reads as follows: Dear Deputy Attorney General, We write to express our support for the work of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, and to urge you to ensure that he be allowed to continue his investigation--unfettered by political influence or threats to his authority--to its natural and appropriate conclusion based on the law, the facts, and the evidence. The Special Counsel is Conducting a Methodical Investigation, Yielding Results. It is unimaginable that Republicans would seek to intervene, discredit, obstruct, or terminate the special counsel's investigation. Thus far, from every public indication, it appears that Mr. Mueller is conducting a thorough and methodical investigation. He and his investigators have not sought, and instead avoided, the public spotlight. His team has not leaked or hinted at criminal allegations for which they have yet to develop charges. Furthermore, the charges that have been filed to date have been sufficiently strong and well founded as to elicit guilty pleas from President Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and a former policy adviser to Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, George Papadopoulos. The Appointment of a Special Counsel Was Necessary and Proper. As you know, pursuant to U.S. Department of Justice Order Number 3915-2017, which you issued on May 17, 2017, Mr. Mueller was appointed to serve as special counsel and authorized to conduct an investigation into matters, ``including any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4(a),'' which includes ``authority to investigate and prosecute Federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.'' Your decision to appoint a special counsel to conduct such an investigation was necessary and proper, given the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President Trump''; the obvious potential that individuals, who had served on President Donald J. Trump's campaign, as well as individuals currently serving as political appointees in the Trump administration, could be targets of, or witnesses in, any such investigation; and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from ``any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.'' The Selection of Robert S. Mueller III to Serve As Special Counsel Was Very Much Appropriate. Under the circumstances described above, your selection of Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel to conduct the investigation was an appropriate and commendable decision. Mr. Mueller has earned a reputation as a nonpartisan, professional investigator, making him an ideal choice to lead the investigation into the highly important, complex, and sensitive matters to which he has been charged. Mr. Mueller's record demonstrates that he would not allow bias, influence, or other extraneous considerations to impact his investigation, and any suggestion otherwise is just not credible. Mr. Mueller is a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, who was originally appointed by a Republican President. He was vetted and, twice, unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, when appointed in 2001 by President George W. Bush, Mueller was confirmed as FBI Director by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate, and when Mueller was nominated for a second term, in 2011, during President Barack Obama's administration, he was again unanimously confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 100-0. Mr. Mueller has earned bipartisan support. Republican Members of the Senate attested to Mr. Mueller's integrity and professionalism during Mr. Mueller's confirmation hearings, which took place on July 30 and 31, 2001. For example, with regard to Mr. Mueller's nomination to serve as FBI Director, then Senator, now Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stated: ``It is great to see Mr. Mueller, nominated to take one of the most important positions in our country. It is a position that requires, in my view, serious experience, great integrity, and a proven record of accomplishment. And you have all of those things, Robert Mueller. When I was in the Department of Justice, Robert Mueller's reputation was known throughout the Department of Justice, and he was known not for any political reason, but because he was recognized as a professional's professional, a man whose skill at doing the job assigned to him was second to none. There is no doubt in my mind that there is no more professional prosecutor, no more professional person in America with experience in the Department of Justice, ready to handle the job of FBI Director than Robert Mueller.'' Likewise, Senator Mitch McConnell stated: ``I believe Mr. Mueller will provide strong and effective leadership. Mr. Mueller has both impressive management and law enforcement experience. He is well-schooled in avoiding the problems and pitfalls inherent in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Mr. Mueller is not `of' the FBI, and therefore I believe institutional loyalty will not blind him to making the hard'' decision he needs to make. Senator McConnell also expressed his belief that Mr. Mueller's commitment ``to vigorously enforcing the law without regard to politics or partisanship.'' Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has also commented on Mr. Mueller's lack of partisan bias. As reported in a July 24, 2017, Washington Examiner article, Speaker Ryan said: ``I don't think many people are saying Robert Mueller is a biased partisan. He's really, sort of, anything but.'' On October 11, 2017, Kenneth Starr, who was appointed in 1994 as the independent counsel who was tasked with investigations involving President Bill Clinton and then First Lady Hillary Clinton, commented on Robert Mueller and the manner in which his investigation is proceeding. Mr. Starr stated that Mr. Mueller is conducting his investigation ``aggressively and professionally.'' Mr. Starr also stated: ``We're not seeing `leaks' out of the investigation as far as we know, and what we know of Bob Mueller and his background is that he is someone of total, rock-ribbed integrity.'' Regulations Limiting the Removal of a Special Counsel Must Be Followed. Mr. Mueller must be allowed to complete his investigation and should not be threatened with removal. However, a few Republicans have indicated their support for Mr. Mueller, for his ouster. Notwithstanding the overwhelming reasons for Mr. Mueller to be allowed to continue and complete his investigation, the rule of law demands that the Trump administration follow executive branch regulations, which restrict the circumstances under which a special counsel can be removed. Specifically, 28 CFR 600.7(d) regarding the removal or discipline of a special counsel provides: ``The special counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a special counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the special counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.'' Since Attorney General Sessions is recused, you, in your capacity as acting Attorney General--that is, Mr. Rosenstein--regarding Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, are the only individual empowered to remove Mr. Mueller under regulation. Furthermore, the regulation clearly states that Mr. Mueller may only be removed for good cause, which has not been demonstrated. The administration is required to follow its own regulations and not remove Mr. Mueller from his investigation. Politically Motivated Challenges of Special Counsel Mueller and His Investigation Must Not Be Allowed to Threaten the Investigation. Despite Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of integrity, as attested to by these Republican leaders, and despite the clear progress that Mr. Mueller is making in his investigation, the rightwing media, some Republican Members of Congress, and Donald Trump, himself, have attempted to advance a false narrative that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation is biased--this is what they say--and some have advocated for Mr. Mueller's removal. On June 15, 2017, referring in general terms to the Russia investigation, President Trump stated on social media: ``You are witnessing the single greatest witch hunt in American political history--led by some very bad and conflicted people.'' In Congress, four Republican Members, led by Representative Matt Gaetz and including former Representative Trent Franks, who has now resigned amidst an Ethics Committee investigation into his own conduct, have cosponsored a resolution calling for Mueller to step down. Those Members have attempted to advance baseless claims of the existence of a conflict due to Mr. Mueller's previous service as FBI Director. Those arguments do not have merit, and appear intended, at best, to redirect the public's focus toward matters that are wholly unrelated to the investigation to which Mr. Mueller has been tasked. At worst, those arguments are intended to stop or preemptively tarnish the perception of the special counsel's work. The issues referenced in that Republican resolution pertain to allegations against former President Bill Clinton and former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton related to a 2009-2010 matter, which has nothing to do with Mr. Mueller's directive to investigate ``links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.'' As quoted in a December 12, 2017, Politico article, Representative Matt Gaetz stated that he told President Trump that he was ``concerned'' that Mr. Mueller's investigation ``was infected with bias.'' Representative Gaetz said the President responded: ``That's why you guys have got to do your job.'' Representative Gaetz further stated that he informed the President that you would be testifying--that is, Mr. Rosenstein--before the House Judiciary Committee on December 13, 2017, in response to which Representative Gaetz said President Trump ``encouraged us to exercise our oversight responsibilities.'' This conversation, as described by Representative Gaetz, suggests that President Trump is encouraging the ring leaders of the recent criticisms against Mr. Mueller in order to pressure you to affect the investigation through the congressional oversight process. That is unacceptable. Some have alleged that Mr. Mueller's removal of a member of this team, Peter Strzok, over text messages sent by Mr. Strzok that were critical of President Trump suggests bias or a lack of objectivity on the special counsel's team. However, upon learning of the text messages, Mr. Mueller immediately removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation. In reality, this incident and Mr. Mueller's swift response demonstrates Mr. Mueller's integrity as well as his desire and commitment to conduct an investigation that is beyond reproach. You must not allow the targets of the investigation, or issues being investigated, to escape thorough independent inquiry through the removal, or hindrance, of the special counsel. We thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for your careful attention to this matter, and we stand ready to support you in upholding the rule of law. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the letter that I am circulating to Mr. Rosenstein. This is the letter that is being signed on by other Members of Congress. This is the letter that I will circulate for the next 24 hours so that we will give Members the opportunity to sign on to this letter. This letter should be on your desk very soon. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Marcy Kaptur, who signed up to speak here this evening.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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. It is important to understand why we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and why it is the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank reforms. Prior to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we did not have anybody looking out for consumers, and so that led us into the crisis that this country experienced in 2008 that took us into a recession and almost a depression. When I come before you with opposition to this kind of legislation, it is because I know and understand--and we should all understand--what we can do to protect our consumers and how we can work with community banks and what that means when we are talking about a bill like this, where real community banks of $2 billion or less are dealing with populations that I have alluded to over and over again in the presentation of my opposition to this bill: the rural communities and those communities that are underserved and where these are riskier loans and where they need not only the attention of the small community banks, but the servicers who service these loans, and knowing that the servicers who service a small number of loans can, in fact, pay the attention to them that is required by RESPA and make sure that the people are understanding, when there are transfers and they are in contact with them constantly--and this goes for everything from transfers to modifications--and how to deal with high-risk loans, who may need to modify those loans, who they would talk to, how they would talk to them. I want to tell you, if you expand this, and you have servicers that are handling 30,000 or more, these borrowers are not going to get this kind of attention. So these escrows that we are talking about are extremely important, and we should know exactly who we are protecting and who we are not protecting. 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 am paying special attention to this legislation, and I take pause when I see bills like H.R. 3971 that are just a small part of Republicans' relentless attack on the work of the Consumer Bureau. The Consumer Bureau's work on high-cost loans and consumer protections for them was well thought through and the result of careful research. Leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, many looking to fulfill the American Dream and purchase a house were convinced to take out higher cost loans without any regard for their ability to repay. They were sold false promises about the costs of their mortgage without adequate information and protections. The Consumer Bureau took years to talk to experts, hear from advocates, and do the research to come up with a strong rule to prevent those types of abuses from occurring again, while also providing regulatory relief to banks that serve rural and underserved communities. So let me take pause and, again, focus everyone on rural and underserved communities. I am oftentimes appalled by the fact that we have too many legislators who represent rural communities and underserved communities, but when it comes to looking out for their financial interests, they are not doing it. Yet they go back to these communities and they talk about all the other kinds of issues. They talk about people who are not saluting the flag properly. They will talk about freedom of choice issues, and they will rally folks around everything except their financial interests. If rural communities are being hurt, oftentimes it is because the very people who say they represent them are not, indeed, representing them, and we can see this in this kind of discussion. So, again, we are focused on making sure that rural and underserved communities are served properly, that they are not thrown to the wolves and thrown into situations where they can't be paid attention to after they take out these loans. When they take out these loans, they need servicers who are trained, servicers who are committed, servicers who understand why rural and underserved communities need special protection, and who will work with them, who will contact them, who will work with them to work out situations where loan modifications may be required or requested. Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to oppose. I understand that there are others who would like to open this up, and 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 think it is important for us to realize that, in present law, community banks of $2 billion or less are exempted from requiring escrow accounts on higher priced loans if they serve rural and underserved areas. So we are talking about present law that gives this exemption. And not only does it exempt these real community banks of $2 billion or less, the banks are required to serve rural communities and underserved areas. This is so important because, oftentimes, these are loans to riskier customers. These are loans where they are charging a higher interest rate. These are loans where they are taking more risk, and so when we hear those on the opposite side of the aisle talking about different ways to service the rural communities, this is one way that the law allows that kind of attention to rural communities and underserved areas. They say: Small community banks, you don't have to have escrow accounts, and so what we are saying to you is give your attention to these rural and underserved areas where they are higher priced loans, they are riskier accounts, and we are not going to require you to have to force upon these kinds of accounts the rules that will be forced upon different kinds of financial institutions. If we adopt this bill, it would not be about community banks at all. And I have to disagree with my chairman of the committee who talked about this, in some way, enhancing community banks' ability to service rural and underserved areas. They are talking about expanding the exemption from $2 billion or less to $25 billion. That is not a community bank. We don't have any community banks that are worth $25 billion or more. I want everybody to be clear what this bill is attempting to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.

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. 3971. Contrary to what is implied by its title, H.R. 3971 would not provide regulatory relief to community banks. Instead, this bill would allow a large number of mortgage services to drop important consumer protections and set the stage for a return of the harmful practices of the subprime meltdown and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Dodd-Frank tasked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with implementing mortgage rules under the Truth in Lending Act that would restrict the types of practices that led to the financial crisis. This bill would harm consumers by raising the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's exemption threshold on escrow accounts requirements for higher priced mortgage loans. Mortgages are classified as higher priced if the annual percentage rate--or APR--exceeds the average prime offer rate by 1.5 percent, and higher priced mortgage loans often reflect riskier or subprime borrowers. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued escrow rules that require borrowers with higher priced mortgage loans to escrow their homeowners insurance, property taxes, and private mortgage insurance for at least the first 5 years of their mortgage. Escrow accounts are an important consumer protection mechanism, especially for higher risk borrowers, because they ensure that homeowners have funds for these expenses, thereby reducing mortgage default or loss of the property. In fact, before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its final rule on escrow requirements in 2013, a Federal Reserve study from 2011 found that consumers with higher priced mortgages that did not have an escrow account in the first year after the consummation of their mortgage had higher instances of default. Escrow accounts also keep homeowners from being blindsided by additional costs at the end of each year and provide a more accurate monthly cost estimate for homeownership when the loan is originated. That is why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rules are designed to ensure that homeowners understand and can meet the full cost of homeownership. Even though escrow accounts are particularly important for these higher priced loans, they are certainly not unique. In fact, most homeowners escrow these funds. Loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture must have borrower escrow accounts, and conventional mortgages with a loan-to- value ratio of 80 percent or higher require them as well. I have not heard a single convincing argument as to what is so burdensome about banks with $25 billion in assets ensuring that their borrowers have enough money set aside every month to pay their taxes and insurance. Furthermore, banks with less than $2 billion in assets that serve rural or underserved areas are already exempt from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's escrow requirements, which reflects the Bureau's commitment to balanced and tailored regulations. This bill would make a dramatic leap from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's targeted relief and exempt banks up to $25 billion in assets, or over 98 percent of banks, from the escrow requirement. They would get this exemption regardless of whether they are serving underserved borrowers and without any evidence that this large exemption would increase access to credit for those who need it. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also addressed the fact that large servicers, especially servicers that serviced loans they did not own for an extended period of time, often did not adequately communicate with customers or appropriately track paperwork. During the crisis, this contributed to millions of unnecessary foreclosures and, later on, several billion-dollar settlements for abusive and fraudulent business practices. In its rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also provides other flexibilities through exemptions to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act loan servicing and escrow account administration requirements to only small bank servicers, if they and their affiliates own the loans they service, and service no more than 5,000 loans each year. H.R. 3971 would increase this exemption by 500 percent, from 5,000 loans a year to 30,000 loans, allowing significantly larger bank servicers to avoid these important consumer safeguards, and only requiring the lenders to hold the loans in portfolio for 3 years. So let's be clear, homeowners do not get to choose their own mortgage servicer, and the least we can do is ensure that they are adequately protected after they sign on the dotted line. As we saw leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, servicers often choose profits over people, and that is why we need the Consumer Bureau to look out for the needs of consumers. The Consumer Bureau has continued to do its job in spite of the unrelenting Republican campaign to slow it down or eliminate it completely. Simply put, H.R. 3971 would enable larger servicers, whose incentives are not aligned with the owners of the loans or the borrowers, to be able to revive the abusive practices involved with predatory lending that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. This is the second time in less than 2 weeks that I have come before you to discuss a bill that would erode vital consumer protections under the Truth in Lending Act for borrowers with high-priced mortgage loans. I cannot support legislation that would keep consumers looking at high-cost mortgages from the vital protections and scrutiny they deserve. For all these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3971. 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 think it is important to further explain what this bill would do and why it could be harmful. Under the present law, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act would require that the servicers handle no more than 5,000 or less loans. Why is this important? It is important because when you have servicers that are handling a relatively small number of these kinds of accounts, they can pay attention to them. Don't forget, these are loans by community banks. They are riskier, they are higher priced loans, they are directed toward rural communities and communities that basically you have to pay a lot of attention to when you give out these loans. And now this bill would say: Yes, we know that when you are servicing a small number, 5,000 or less, that the services have to pay attention because they are under the rule of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and that act says not only do you have to pay attention and you have to contact your borrower when you are going to transfer the loan--and let me tell you how important this is. This is so important because when you transfer a loan, if you don't give the kind of notification to the borrower that they will understand that the originator of the loan no longer has the servicing or has the same servicing contract that is now going to move to another servicer, then people, oftentimes, end up not sending their payment to the right place. And guess what, I have seen this go on for months, and then people end up in a situation where they are defaulting on the loan, and the new servicers are putting them in a position where now their homes are in danger. So this contact, this oversight, this attention that you pay to these small borrowers is so important, and that is why the 5,000. Now, with this bill, they want to take it up to 30,000. What does that mean? It means that we are going to see the kind of problems that we have seen in the subprime meltdown that we have gone through. We have found that servicers caused us the most problems. Of course, they didn't service the loans adequately. They lost them. They had people applying over and over again. First of all, we discovered that many of the servicers had no training, that they were literally hired off the street, and that they were basically saying to senior citizens, 75 and 80 years old: We lost your paper. Reapply again. Reapply again. We are sorry. It has been just an awful situation that was created because the servicers could not handle the volume that they were contracted with, oftentimes, for the financial institution that they were supposed to be doing this work for. So, here you have a bill that literally is not about community banks. This is about increasing the number of banks that can now have the kind of protection that we were giving to the very small community banks. So don't believe this is about community banks. In addition to that, what you are doing is you are changing the rules and the laws under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that protects these rural borrowers and these small, high-risk loans that are in these communities that need a special kind of help. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS

Ms. MAXINE WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is strongly opposed by all of the consumer groups: Americans for Financial Reform, Center for American Progress, Center for Responsible Lending, the National Consumer Law Center, and Public Citizen. Why are they so opposed to this bill? This bill would, again, amend the Truth in Lending Act--that is TILA--and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act--that is RESPA--to widen the size of two exemptions that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already provided for smaller sized institutions on escrow accounts for higher priced mortgage loans and servicing requirements for small mortgage servicers. Under the bill, escrow accounts would no longer be required for riskier, high-priced loans at institutions with less than $25 billion in assets. Currently, the exemption applies to firms with less than $2 billion in assets. The smaller service exception for increased notification requirements to consumers would be increased, again, from servicers with 5,000 loans to those with 30,000 loans. Why do all of these consumer groups oppose this legislation? Because it is obvious what is happening here. We are taking away the protection from those who need it the most. We are not doing anything for community banks. There are no $25 billion community banks. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues in this House oppose this bill. It goes in the opposite direction of what we have done to try and give protection to those consumers who need protection the most, and the Dodd-Frank reform has done this, and I would just ask opposition to this bill. 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. Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's regulations address many questionable practices that contributed to the collapse of the housing market. Such practices were widespread in the mortgage servicing industry. The Bureau's servicing rules apply across the board, while providing a narrow exemption for small servicers. This exemption minimizes the regulatory compliance burden on small and community banks. Expanding current exemptions to larger institutions, however, just opens the door wide to abuses by larger banks primarily doing business not in the communities, the rural communities and the underserved communities, but outside of the communities where they are based, and by nonbanks, which still make most of the riskier subprime mortgage loans. Mr. Speaker, I continue to ask opposition to this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time I have left.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to move now to say a word about what my colleague is attempting to do. I appreciate my colleague from California (Mr. Sherman), who is going to offer an amendment that would lower the extremely high exemption thresholds in the underlying bill. I think that, having talked to him, I do understand that he believes that this is important to expand opportunity rather than to limit the ability for protection for certain of our consumers who come from these areas that I have described as rural and areas that are underserved. This amendment that he is going to present would allow creditors, again, with less than $10 billion in assets, to be exempted from escrow requirements on higher priced mortgage loans if they hold loans in portfolios for 3 years and allow servicers that service 20,000 loans or less to be exempted from enhanced consumer protection requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. His amendment changes it a little bit from $25 billion to $10 billion, that is still too much, and from 30,000 loans or less to 20,000 loans or less to be exempted from, again, enhanced consumer protection requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Although I am pleased that this amendment would tighten up the language in the underlying bill somewhat, I remain concerned about the impacts it could have on many consumers. The bill is called the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act of 2017, and the title implies that it will relieve our Nation's smaller financial institutions from regulatory burdens. Now, we all know that community banking is not purely a function of size, but when the Consumer Bureau conducted research for its escrow requirements rulemaking, it found that none of the entities it identified as operating predominantly in rural or underserved areas had total assets as of the end of 2009 greater than $2 billion. And when the Consumer Bureau researched mortgage service and practices, it concluded: ``The problematic practices that have plagued the servicing industry, particularly in recent years, are, to a large extent, a function of a business model in which servicing is viewed as a discrete line of business and profit center.'' However, they also found that approximately 96 percent of community bank and small credit union services that only purchase a hold, mortgage service, and rights for mortgage loans, they actually own or originate service 5,000 or fewer loans. Yet this amendment would exceed the Consumer Bureau's research base that sets that threshold by billions of dollars and its carefully researched loan service and threshold by 400 percent. So if the amendment is adopted, I must continue to oppose the bill because it would undermine the work of the Consumer Bureau and weaken consumer protections in homeownership. Congress should not be complicit in these acts by passing legislation that further erodes the rights and protections of America's consumers. We must continue to do all that we can to ensure mortgage loan borrowers are fully aware of the terms and conditions of their mortgage loans and how much they will owe in obtaining these loans. If we are successful in convincing our colleagues today that they should not support this bill, I will be happy to work with my colleague, who I know has good intentions, to see what we can do to address what I think are some of his concerns. But for now, I must oppose the bill, and even with the amendment, it does not satisfy the concerns that I have addressed here. It does nothing to protect those in the rural communities and the underserved communities, and it does nothing to help community banks. So I am opposed both to the bill and to the amendment, and I ask for a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.