Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today while I spoke on the House floor on H.R. 78, the state-owned Russian channel called ``Russia Today'' suddenly interrupted my speech, and C-SPAN coverage was replaced with Russian programming. Can the Chair please explain the proper rules for coverage of House floor proceedings? How did this happen?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage opposition to the nomination of Jeff Sessions to the Attorney General's Office by this President-elect. We have been asked and we are constantly asked: Are you saying he is a racist? He defined himself. He defined himself long ago when he was denied a Federal judgeship in 1986 after having been appointed by Ronald Reagan. He was denied because his colleagues said they heard him use the N-word. Also, it was very well documented that after two of the members of the KKK killed an African American man, he said: Oh, I thought the KKK was okay until I learned they smoked marijuana. This is the same man that said, again, that the NAACP and the SCLC were un-American, that they were communist inspired, and it goes on and on and on. And it is not whether or not we are calling him or we think of him as a racist; he defined himself in that manner. He was denied the appointment to the Federal judgeship, including by Republicans who voted against him. So here we have a man who is going to be considered for the Attorney General's Office where we have the Civil Rights Division. Should we be worried about that? You bet your bottom dollar we should be worried about that. Not only has he defined himself as a racist, but this is a throwback. This is a man who is a setback. This is a man who does not agree with his colleagues on criminal justice reform. This is a man who loves mandatory minimum sentences. This is a man who does not want the Justice Department to work with local police departments who are in trouble, like what happened in Ferguson. This is a man who is against voting rights. This is a man who has shown himself to be against women. This is a man who does not support the LGBT community. Why would we want him to have this very important, prestigious position as the Attorney General overseeing civil rights? I don't think so. I advise everybody who is listening and all of our colleagues to support him not being appointed to that position and to get the word over to the Senators that they should not support him, they should not vote for him.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. President, I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask: Is there one United States Senator who will join me in this letter of objection?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires that any final standard agreed to under the terms of this bill be composed in plain writing in accordance with the Plain Writing Act of 2010. That law basically requires that Federal agencies use ``clear government communication that the public can understand and use.'' As a matter of general policy, I think that makes good sense. We want the public to be able to understand the rules and regulations that impact their daily lives. When government regulations are difficult to comprehend, it undermines rather than enhances our goal of setting clear rules of the road and preventing misconduct. But no amount of clear communication or plain writing will improve the basic issues with the underlying bill. Of course we support plain writing. I wish that all of us would adopt and carry out and implement the legislation that was passed, supported by both sides of the aisle, for plain writing, for plain English. I wish the State would do it with their propositions, et cetera. We all pay lip service to it, but then we come with the gobbledygook that the American public has to try and understand. So, yes, I support plain writing. I support the public being able to understand what we do, but I don't want people to be confused. Plain writing has nothing to do with the basic issues in this underlying bill. While I do not take issue with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida, I continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is a solution in search of a problem, one that certainly does not exist. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The gentleman who just gave testimony indicated that the secret is out. I don't think he described the secret accurately, but let me just say it is out, and, just as Mr. Hensarling said on the floor the other day, we ain't seen nothing yet. They are out to destroy Dodd-Frank, they are out to destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they keep coming forward, as they are doing today, to protect Wall Street. I ask my colleagues to consider the great progress we have made since the enactment of Wall Street reform to fix the blind spots that prevented our regulators from seeing the big picture. Our U.S. financial system is increasingly complex, and the regulatory structure for the oversight of our system was fragmented before the financial crisis. This was particularly true of the insurance industry, which is regulated primarily by the States. While our State-based system for insurance regulation has many strengths, by its very nature, it is ill-suited to address all of the issues related to large, globally active insurance companies. That is why Dodd-Frank, while continuing to recognize the primacy of State- based regulation, changed many of the ways in which the insurance industry is supervised for consolidated supervision and enhanced regulation. If we take a look at AIG, of course, one cannot help but ask: What State regulated AIG; and why did we get into the problem that we got into with AIG? It was because of its London-based operation. That is why it is so important to have cooperation between the countries on these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world. Let's remind everyone what this bill really does. It takes us backward. It says: forget about examining systemic risks across jurisdictions, and, instead, let's continue to leave the largest internationally active insurers in the world off the hook for any risk they may pose to our economy. Not the small, domestic insurers that engage in traditional activities, not the companies that make up such an important part of our economy in rural areas, and certainly not the insurers that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis. We are talking about the biggest and most complex insurers that have operations all over the globe and pose risks to international financial stability. This bill is not about transparency, as its title would suggest. It is about weakening oversight of these large firms and making it virtually impossible to agree to any kind of international insurance standard. This bill is also not about protecting policyholders. It is about burying our head in the sand and going back to the precrisis days where all of us, including policyholders, were vulnerable to a systemic failure. So let's call this bill what it is. It is a giveaway to the insurance industry that is trying to escape more oversight. And let's not pretend that this bill would ensure a more unified U.S. posture on the international stage because, under the provisions of this bill, the U.S. will be severely crippled in its ability to negotiate on these issues, which means that the rest of the world will move forward while American interests get left behind. What are we talking about? We are talking about capitalization. And if we are not willing to engage with other countries in this international community about these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world about capital standards, we are putting our own country at risk. The administration has already issued a strong veto threat for all of these reasons. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let me share with you exactly what the administration is saying. ``The restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on United States representatives in international insurance matters under H.R. 5143 would raise serious constitutional concerns and severely outweigh any potential attendant benefits. . . . ``FIO, the Federal Reserve, and state insurance commissioners are all actively engaged at the IAIS and regularly coordinate with one another, ensuring that each aspect of the unique United States regulatory regime is adequately represented in any international negotiation. Despite their effective coordination and extensive work thus far to improve global insurance regulation, the restrictions which H.R. 5143 seeks to impose would stop this work in its tracks and would put in place cumbersome and counterproductive requirements. . . . ``Because this legislation seeks to tie the hands of U.S. representatives, in an unconstitutional manner, and prevent them from effectively negotiating on international insurance matters, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5143.'' Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, promised me and threatened me and others that we ain't seen nothing yet, I think it is very clear about what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle and how Mr. Hensarling and the committee are already carrying out the Trump agenda. They are making sure that before we leave here on break everyone understands that they are not about to support Dodd-Frank in any shape, form, or fashion, but, rather, they are going to take every opportunity to undermine Dodd-Frank because they don't believe in reforming Wall Street. Mr. Trump said that he was running for the United States President because he wanted to drain the swamp, but Mr. Trump and his leadership are already showing us that they intend to expand the swamp, that they are going to grow the swamp, that they are going to make sure that they have everybody from Wall Street, many of whom have already been fined, been accused of fraud, who are under investigation--somehow he is bringing them close to him, and I wonder why. This legislation today basically tells you a story. It tells you a story that they are talking about. They are saying, in essence, that we, the United States of America, operate unto ourselves. Yes, we have these big firms, and we don't mind that they have big businesses in other countries, like AIG. We don't mind that they are operating internationally. We have State regulations, and our State regulations will take care of whatever our needs are for oversight of insurance. But they can't tell you why that didn't happen with AIG. As a matter of fact, they don't mention AIG. They wish the story of AIG would just simply go away. They don't want the American people to be reminded of what happened with AIG that almost brought this country to its knees. They don't want to remind the people that we had to bail them out. They don't want to remind the people that they were undercapitalized, their credit default swaps were fraudulent, and they didn't have anything to back it up. So here we are, and they are asking the American people to ignore all of this, just forget all of this. We are out to protect those who certainly should not be protected. Mr. Speaker, 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, here we go again. Last week, the majority made it clear that it was just getting started with the special interest giveaways at the expense of financial stability and consumer protection. Now, before we adjourn, we are here to debate one last holiday gift to Wall Street. This bill's gift is less oversight of the largest insurers in the United States, which will put us at risk for another AIG. Don't forget, AIG was bailed out to the tune of $182 billion. While Democrats passed Wall Street reform to prevent another crisis and future bailouts, Chairman Hensarling and Donald Trump have made it clear that Dodd-Frank is on the chopping block. Without the safeguards in Dodd-Frank, a lack of capital standards for large insurance companies will put our economy at risk. No one should be surprised at what is taking place here. This is Donald Trump's agenda. Despite promises to hold Wall Street accountable, the President-elect is proposing an administration that is heavy on Wall Street insiders. Their plans will do little to help the millions of Americans struggling to get ahead, but that is by design. Because ``Trumpism'' isn't really about helping the middle class. It is about lining the pockets of some of our biggest banks and insurance companies. AIG, as I mentioned, is a poster child of the financial crisis. It engaged in financial activities that more closely resemble investment banking than traditional insurance. Prior to the crisis, State regulators, which have primary jurisdiction over insurance companies, did not effectively account for AIG's activities related to credit derivatives or securities lending, for example, which allowed it to skate by with minimum capital. When AIG's bets on subprime mortgage-backed securities failed, it collapsed and required a taxpayer bailout. Recall that we bailed out AIG because it was a counterparty to nearly all of the largest global banks; meaning that if AIG failed, it would bring down a series of global megabanks with it. So under Dodd-Frank, we improved the oversight of insurance companies by giving Federal regulators the necessary tools to prevent another collapse of large, globally active insurance companies. We are talking about the big boys here: AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. For the past several years, Federal regulators have been overseeing systematically important financial institutions, which are identified as such because they are expected to pose a substantial risk to our financial stability if they fail. Our Federal regulators have also been negotiating with 140 other countries on international standards for large globally connected insurers. However, today's bill is designed to undermine the progress we have made on this front, and to ultimately prevent the adoption of these capital standards in the United States. In fact, H.R. 5143 would add layers of burdensome red tape and unworkable requirements on our Federal negotiators, making it virtually impossible for them to advocate effectively for U.S. interests on these issues or agree to any kind of standard. For example, this bill would prevent negotiators from agreeing to any standard unless it focuses exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims. However, focusing exclusively on a company's ability to pay claims can lead those same policyholders vulnerable to systemic failure. Moreover, by crippling our ability to engage effectively on international insurance issues, this bill will ensure that the rest of the world will move on to adopt standards that are not in our best interest. At worst, this bill is unconstitutional--something that the administration detailed in its statement of policy--raising multiple conflicts between the President's exclusive authority on international agreements and the bill's requirements to directly include State insurance commissioners in international negotiations. At best, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. It caters to an unfounded fear that internationally agreed upon policies would be forced upon the small, domestic insurance companies and unwilling States. Let me again reiterate that the standards being negotiated internationally are for the largest insurers that operate all over the world--companies like AIG, MetLife, and Prudential. It is a scare tactic to claim that these standards would be applied to anyone but the largest and most interconnected global insurers. Second, States can never be compelled to adopt international standards such as these. These standards are nonbinding and each individual State has the discretion to adopt them, modify them, or reject them entirely after going through their full regulatory process. Third, stakeholders have ample opportunity to weigh in on these discussions. For example, Federal negotiators have held multiple sessions for stakeholders to provide input, and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors has greatly improved public access and consultation. Yet, this bill, H.R. 5143, would require several additional notice and comment periods and several other layers of unnecessary red tape. To make matters worse, the sponsor proposes to pay for the bill's costs by taking $7 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission's reserve fund, which means that our financial watchdog will be unable to respond to unforeseen events, like the flash crash. In short, this bill would ask taxpayers to pay for the cost of rejecting capital standards by taking away the funding the SEC needs to respond to emergency situations that threaten financial stability. That just doubles down on the irresponsible policymaking we have seen by the opposite side of the aisle. As the veto threat issued by the White House on this bill states: The Nation has made great progress as a result of Dodd- Frank, and we cannot allow this bill to hamper the United States' ability to implement the best standards for our unique regulatory regime. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republicans will go to any lengths necessary to give industry what it wants--less oversight, less supervision, and less regulation. Republicans have repeatedly tried to hamstring our efforts to more effectively monitor and respond to systemic risk by working to dismantle the FSOC and its designation authority for SIFIs. They have called the FSOC unconstitutional and helped companies like MetLife challenge its designation in court. So I am not really surprised that Republicans would close out 2016 by bringing this bill to the floor, but I am disappointed because the American people deserve better. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, while the other side fights for the big banks and we over here are fighting for the consumers, let me just say that Mr. Frank has not supported H.R. 6392, and you need to stop saying that. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to 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 ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AL GREEN).

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin has the audacity to come to this floor and say that we are crushing these pitiful little banks with $50 billion or more. No. You are crushing the average person who gets up every morning, who goes to work, and who is trying to take care of their families and is getting ripped off by these financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, it was just said that this is affecting Main Street. It is not. All that passion you see on the other side is about the big banks, not about community banks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a strong advocate for the protection of Wall Street reform.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.