Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply want a little colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York about what she just alluded to. I think she said something about we will be faced with legislation very soon that would roll back all of the work we have done with Dodd- Frank? Did I hear her say something like that?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate Congresswoman Maloney holding down the fort while I was away today, and I appreciate the work that she has put in this committee on these issues. I am very pleased to be here with her today. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2357, a toxic package of bills that would outright encourage fraud in our financial markets and put retail investors and small businesses at risk. Instead of addressing a host of critical issues facing the American people, including helping the people of Baton Rouge, for example, where there has been a loss of 160,000 homes, instead of helping to come together with this side of the aisle to deal with Zika, instead of helping to deal with the problem we have of water up in Flint, or dealing with the idea that we need to expand Social Security, here we are. Those people in Baton Rouge, who have just suffered all these devastating losses following the historic flooding last month, are looking to us for help and support. Here we are under the leadership of our Republicans prioritizing a bill that would make it easier for companies to scam investors by escaping regulatory scrutiny. In particular, H.R. 2357 would allow small companies that are not listed on a national stock exchange to publicly offer their stock as an accelerated filer, without first alerting the Securities and Exchange Commission or gaining its approval. Currently, this accelerated filer status is reserved for larger companies that meet the standards of and are traded on a national stock exchange. They also are closely followed by analysts, giving investors more insight into their activities. Small companies traded off exchange simply don't have the same safeguards in place. Providing this type of quick access to our securities markets without sufficient oversight and transparency would lead to accounting fraud, market manipulation, insider trading, and sales of unofficially inflated stock. Anyone who has seen the movie, ``The Wolf of Wall Street,'' can tell you just how bad this would be for our investors and their savings. Next, the bill would recreate a private securities offering that would be exempt from Federal and State securities laws. The bill would carve out a scenario where a private company could sell stock to certain investors without providing them or the SEC with any information. This stock could then be distributed to the public at large without restriction and, again, without any information. What is more troubling is that the SEC previously eliminated this exact type of offering exemption after concluding that it, in fact, facilitated fraud. Specifically, the exemption had been used frequently in fraudulent pump-and-dump schemes where these early investors aggressively promoted the stock to artificially inflate its price and then dump their shares on unsuspecting investors. The provision also ignores the fact that the JOBS Act created similar, yet responsible, exemptions to facilitate small company offerings under the crowdfunding rules in regulation A. As a result, this bill would simply create a big loophole for companies to secretly conduct public offerings and swindle investors. Lastly, the bill would stop the SEC dead in its tracks in advancing important investor protections in the trillion-dollar private securities market. In particular, it would block the Commission from requiring companies to file a short, simple notice of a sale to alert the SEC and State regulators to possible fraud. It also would prevent the SEC from stopping private equity funds and hedge funds from using misleading advertising materials. This would essentially allow bad actors to run wild and sell stock to unknowing investors about their true intentions. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this bill represents reckless shortsightedness and woeful disregard for the history of fraud in the securities market by undoing much-needed disclosure requirements and investor protections. The administration has threatened to veto this bill saying it would ``undermine not only the health and integrity of our markets, but the very capital formation process they claim to promote.'' I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to join me, investor advocates, and State securities regulators in opposing H.R. 2357. I close by raising the questions: Why is it, coming back from break, with all of these important issues facing the American public, do we move so quickly to protect Wall Street, to protect private equity, to protect hedge funds? Who are we looking out for in the Congress of the United States of America? Do we have to go back and remind people what happened in this country in 2008 when we put so many families and communities at risk because we didn't have the oversight, we didn't have the transparency, we didn't have the watchful eye of the cop on the block really doing the work we needed to protect our investors and our citizens? Why are we doing this? Why are we spending this time? I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me and vote against this bill and send a message to our citizens and our constituencies that we are on the side of Main Street, not Wall Street.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans have made it a top priority to bypass regular order and rush a number of measures to the floor as part of their reckless and politically driven Iran week agenda that would put the United States in breach of our commitments under the Iran nuclear deal. Concluded a year ago, the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb for the foreseeable future. The agreement imposed tough restrictions on and heavy monitoring of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for nuclear-related sanctions relief. To date, Iran has upheld its end of the deal, and I believe we have a responsibility to uphold our commitments as well. The bill before us today, H.R. 4992, is just one of the measures under consideration this week that is aimed squarely at prohibiting Iran from experiencing the sanctions relief promised under the agreement that is the JCPOA. As part of the Iran nuclear deal, the U.S. committed to lift secondary sanctions to allow Iran to conduct banking transactions outside of the United States in return for Iran meeting its nuclear- related commitments, which was verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. H.R. 4992, this bill, would put the United States in direct violation of the JCPOA by reapplying these secondary sanctions that had been lifted as part of the agreement. Moreover, the bill would undermine the good faith commitment made by all parties under the JCPOA to uphold the letter, the spirit, and intent of the agreement, and to refrain from action that would undermine its successful implementation. By denying the relief we committed to provide under the deal, we throw the continued viability of the JCPOA into question, thereby abandoning the best chance we have at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In addition to violating our commitments under the JCPOA, this bill does nothing to provide additional protection for the United States financial system. The bill's proponents ignore the fact that our primary embargo on Iran remains in effect and that the administration is already taking robust measures to protect the United States financial system from access by Iran. To the extent this bill is motivated by rumors that the administration is preparing to grant Iran new access to the U.S. financial system beyond the scope of JCPOA, I would point out that the administration has said that these rumors are entirely unfounded. The administration has also made clear that it has no intention of reinstating the U-turn authorization, which permits foreign firms to use the U.S. as a pass-through for facilitating transactions with Iran, or give Iran access to the United States financial system. The President has officially stated that he will veto this bill and any other legislation that prevents the successful implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. We must ask ourselves, if we undermine this deal that we made, what comes next, more sanctions? It is important to remember that the harsh nuclear-related sanctions that were previously in place did not prevent Iran from continuing to pursue a nuclear capability. A United States-led attack on Iran--I sincerely hope that we would work diligently to avoid this option. Lastly, I am opposed to this bill being brought directly to the floor without going through regular order. We did not hold a hearing. We did not hold a markup in the Financial Services Committee on this legislation, denying Members the opportunity to fully consider its implications. We cannot renege on our commitment to uphold the JCPOA, a significant effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Violating the agreement would not only undermine U.S. national security, but also our ability to lead on any international negotiations aimed at peace in the future. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4992. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), the ranking member of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You have heard very clearly from this side of the aisle as to why it is so important for us to be true to our commitments that were made under the agreement. You have heard very clearly what this bill is all about. Part of that agreement which is being denied by the opposite side of the aisle has to do with non-U.S. financial institutions. We maintain our sanctions as they relate to the United States financial institutions. Our institutions are not in any way violating those sanctions, and we do not allow our financial institutions to do business with Iran; but we do support non-U.S. financial institutions' ability to do business with Iran. What is this bill all about? We keep hearing about rumors. We keep hearing about suspicions. We keep hearing about what we think they may do. We keep hearing about what someone else said they are going to do. The fact of the matter is this agreement is extremely clear. They--that is the Iranians--have not violated this agreement at all. As a matter of fact, there is something in the agreement called dispute resolution. If you believe that they have violated the agreement in some way, why don't you insist on a dispute resolution to deal with the issue? But you cannot do that. You cannot point to anything that the Iranians have done that is in disagreement with the agreement that has been made. Why are you coming to the floor of the House of Representatives 1 day before we are to take a break and putting this bill and other bills on the floor? Is this politically motivated? What are you trying to do? Who are you trying to send a message to? Instead of using your power and your ability to deal with this agreement in an honest and credible way, what you should be doing is supporting the President of the United States of America and respecting this country and our commitments. We have five other countries in this deal. What happens if we renege on our agreements? What are they to think of us? What do you think about your country? Why would you have the President of the United States on the international stage looking as if the rug has been pulled out from under him by his own legislators? I don't get it. I do not understand it. As a matter of fact, one of the things we should all be very clear about is our support for Israel. That side of the aisle does not support our relationship and our friendship any more than we do. If that is the message you are trying to send, it doesn't work. It doesn't hold water. As a matter of fact, any Member of Congress who looks at this agreement, who reads the agreement, who understands the agreement knows that you don't have any issues with what is happening in our financial system. You have not been able, in this debate, to talk about the fact that U.S. financial systems are not involved in any way.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will address these remarks to you so they can hear them, and that is that they have not been able to identify in this debate how the United States financial institutions are involved in any shape, form, or fashion in doing business with Iran. They have not been able, in the debate, to indicate that, somehow, we have not agreed that non-U.S. financial institutions can be involved in financial deals with Iran. I am simply asking that they deal with the facts. I am simply asking them not to undermine the agreement that we have made. I am simply asking them to admit that Iran has in no way violated this agreement. I am asking them to simply support this country and this President and to make sure that we don't separate ourselves from the other five countries that we have a deal with. I am asking them not to put us in the position in which the other five countries say: ``We cannot trust America. We cannot trust America because they are reneging on the deal.'' We have done a tremendous service not only to Israel but to the United States in working out this deal to ensure that Iran does not continue to develop its nuclear capability. Why did we do that? It is because we are on the path toward peace and not war. We do not want Iran to attack Israel, and we do not want Israel to attack Iran. We do not want the United States to be thrown into this war--a war that could be created by either of them--because we believe that we can provide credible leadership for peace. That is what this is all about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would just like to say that we are all in agreement that Iran should not be a nuclear state, which would pose a direct threat to both the United States and international security. The Iran nuclear deal is the best option we have for keeping nuclear weapons out of the Iranian Government's hands. It would be reckless to abandon our commitments under the deal which deny Iran a credible opportunity to produce weapons-grade nuclear material for use in a bomb for at least a generation. To date, Iran, again, has upheld its end of the deal, and we have a responsibility to do the same. The President's Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4992 and the other harmful Iran-related bills on the floor this week state that undermining the JCPOA would ``remove the unprecedented constraints on and monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to the credibility of America's leadership and our commitments to our closest allies.'' H.R. 4992 is being framed as protecting the U.S. financial system; yet our financial system is already protected by our primary sanctions on Iran. In other words, this bill does nothing to protect the U.S. financial system or to promote our national security. In fact, it does the opposite. We have said all of this, which I have just reiterated, but let me make my final and closing statement. Why are you wasting your time? Even if, by some stroke of magic, you could get this through the Senate and send it to the President of the United States, he is going to veto it. They know it. Everyone knows it. Why are we doing this? I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, if you take a look at this House, that side of the aisle is empty. They left. They are gone. Take a look on this side, and you see Democrats. Democrats are raising the question: Why did you decide to leave and to take a break without dealing with the serious issues that confront us today? Let me just remind them: Columbine; Newtown; Aurora, Colorado; Fort Hood Army Base, Texas; Tucson, Arizona, Representative Gabby Giffords; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Washington, D.C., Navy Yard; Reynolds High School; Emanuel AME Church; San Bernardino; Pulse nightclub, Orlando, Florida. In all of these, there were children. What do we say about the children? We have had a moment of silence, and we have forgotten that children are dying. In Flint, Michigan, children still don't have clean water. The water has lead in it. We have not done anything. Well, whether we are talking about Flint or the Zika virus or the children who have been killed because of gun violence, Republicans, where are you? Shame on you for abandoning the issues that need to be dealt with.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor this afternoon to continue to talk about gun violence and to talk about the problems that we are encountering in this country at this time with the issues of citizens being killed, police officers being killed, domestic violence, to talk about people who may be mentally ill who are committing gun violence. This is a very difficult subject. You have heard from my colleagues for some days now about our determination to deal with this issue of gun violence. You have heard about the bills that we have tried to get taken up on the floor to deal with gun violence. Very simple bills. One bill that is a bill that has been characterized as no fly, no buy, simply meaning that if you are too dangerous to be on an airplane, you are too dangerous to be able to buy a gun. And, of course, universal background checks to make sure we know who is seeking to purchase weapons and what their backgrounds are and whether or not they should be allowed to purchase a gun. In the middle of all of this work that we are doing, we are painfully reminded that there is another issue and another problem that we have been confronted with year in and year out that really has not been dealt with, and this problem is one that has reared its head one more time. Just a few days ago we witnessed the killings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Minnesota. And, of course, because of the graphic pictures that were shown on television, because of the cell phones that recorded what was going on, it has really created the kind of discussion and organizing and rallying and protesting that forces us to have to deal with this issue even when it is too painful for many to deal with. I would like to say that I have been dealing with this issue for many, many years. It started when I was in the California State legislature back in 1994. There was a woman named Eula Love, who was shot down on her porch in front of her daughters. Because she had not been able to pay her utility bill, her gas bill, her heating bill, and because she would not allow the gas company to turn off her heat, they called the police, and the police came out. A confrontation ensued. I think she had a butter knife that she waved at them, and they shot Eula Love down on her porch. I became very active back then in dealing with police shootings because, as you know, in the Los Angeles area there had been incidents prior to this, dating back before this that had created the kind of protests and rallies that really caused people to fear what was happening in our communities. So I organized. I visited the police commission. I organized others to visit the police commission. We tried to set up meetings with the police chief at the time, who was Daryl Gates. Daryl Gates was a tough chief of police, and he had no intentions of sitting down with the community to talk about police shootings. He felt that every police shooting was justified and that the community had no right to question what happened when there was a confrontation between police and the community. We organized. We continued to put pressure on Daryl Gates. More incidents occurred. As a matter of fact, when you heard about the death of Eric Gardner up in New York, who died from something called the choke hold, it really was a practice that was used in the Los Angeles area by police officers. At that time, Daryl Gates, the police chief, said that the Black people who were killed as a result of the choke hold died because something was wrong with their carotid muscle; that it was something abnormal about Black people that caused them to die when they were placed in this kind of choke hold. And so having worked in the greater Los Angeles area and witnessed Police Chief Daryl Gates learning and understanding the choke hold, and even there was something called the battering ram and on and on and on, I have known for many years that this was an issue that had to be dealt with, and from time to time others have tried. There have been meetings in various cities and towns in this country at police commissions. Many people have tried to create civilian police review boards. It has been resisted in many cities and towns. Very few have been able to create citizen police review boards. So these killings continue. And they are disproportionately killings of Black men and boys. So when people raise the question about why so many Black folks are involved in this issue, it is because of the disproportionate number of African Americans who find themselves killed, and their families find their relatives killed at the hands of police. Now, of course, not all police are out looking to kill someone. Not all police are prejudiced. Not all police are bad officers. But, of course, we know there are problems. We have pointed to the training, and we have asked for better training. We have always felt that the buck stops at the top and that if police chiefs have the kind of training that we believe officers should have, we could reduce the numbers of confrontations and killings of young Black men in particular. I don't know what has become of this training idea. I think most police chiefs will tell you: Oh, we do the proper training. We have the best training of any police department in the country. But somehow people who are the victims of police officers who are responsible for these killings really don't believe that the training is what it should be. These killings are creating the kind of protests and rallies that are making a lot of people extremely uncomfortable. We are all very saddened by the fact that we lost five police officers in Dallas and that the killer of the police officers said he killed them because he was seeking revenge. We do not want the revenge mentality to take hold in this country. That is very dangerous. What do we do about it? What we do about it is keep working at how we can reduce these killings, how we can eliminate these killings. What can we do? I have some ideas about this that I am working with some people on. As a matter of fact, I will be speaking to the National Black Lawyers Association on Monday in St. Louis, Missouri, and I am going to talk with them about several ideas. One of the ideas I want to talk with them about is encouraging more communities to meet on an ongoing and regular basis with police chiefs. Get to know them, talk with them, explain what has been said about them and the feelings of African Americans in these communities. Get to know each other. I am going to ask them to work with the members of the city councils who have the budgets of the police departments and with the county supervisors who have the budgets of the sheriff's departments. Talk with them and leverage your influence because you have the budget in your control to let them know how serious you are about reducing these killings and these confrontations. The other issue that I am going to talk with the lawyers about is putting together a program to take to our police chiefs about reducing the confrontations by eliminating stopping these automobiles and these drivers on minor incidents, minor problems. Of course, there are going to be some taillights that need to be fixed, but do you need to stop that motorist? Do you need to ask them to get out of the car? Do you need to ask them to get out of the car with their hands up? Do you ask them to get out of the car and lean over the back of the car, legs spread, arms spread? Do you need to ask them to get out of the car and tell them to lay on the ground while you search them? Do you need to search the car illegally? What are you looking for? If, in fact, it is just a tail light, can't you just give a warning? Can't you just give a ticket and go on about your business? Why is it that these police stops about tail lights and other infractions are causing so much confrontation? Of course, as most drivers try to do the best they can in driving and taking care of their cars, I am sure there are those who would like to get some things fixed, whether it is a windshield wiper or a tail light or something else that may be wrong with the car, but I am sure some may have to wait until the next payday. They may not have enough money to do that. They are not crooks and they are not criminals, and they should be warned. There is something in the Black community that Blacks have believed for a long time. When kids are coming up, they tend to get in trouble. Sometimes they vandalize; sometimes they perhaps ring somebody's doorbell and run, as someone was explaining the other night that was happening with their child; or sometimes they will pull a prank and run away, and then they get caught. In the African American community, we believe that oftentimes when children commit these kinds of minor offenses and the police stop them, they take them home to momma or they tell them to get out of there and go home, but when Black kids are stopped, the Black community believes our kids are taken to jail. We have got to straighten out some of the misunderstandings about what happens when Black boys, in particular, and Black men are stopped on these infractions. We believe that a lot of confrontations do not have to take place if, in fact, these minor offenses are not treated like crimes. We believe that we can reduce the occurrence of these confrontations by convincing the police departments that they should not be asking folks to get out of their cars and creating a confrontation. People should not be calling each other names. We want to eliminate from the mouths of any police officers the N-word or the kind of language that is oftentimes used when they decide that they are going to stop someone and that they are going to raise questions or they are going to search them, et cetera. We believe that that is a legitimate thing to do. So I am going to be recommending to the National Black Lawyers Association that we put together a program that we present to these police chiefs and these police departments about reducing confrontation and discontinuing the stops on minor offenses that end up in confrontations and killings. The other thing that I am going to be recommending not only to the National Black Lawyers Association but to the news media and to these channels who cover all of this, why can't we have some public service announcements that go on every day and maybe at the end of every day where people are reminded about safe driving and taking care of their cars, getting those windshield wipers fixed, getting those tail lights fixed, making sure that the windows are working. Why can't we have public service announcements that just keep reminding people to have your insurance documentation in the car with you--all of those things that could reduce the kind of stops that we are witnessing time and time again that are ending in confrontation. I believe that there are many other things that we can do if we think about it. I know there is a lot going on about having discussions. People say that we should talk to each other more. Well, that is fine and that is good, and for all of those people who would like to be involved in discussions with each other in their communities or with the police department, you should do that. But talk is cheap, and it really is going to take some concerted actions to be able to deal with this problem. There are some police officers who should just be weeded out. They have no business being police officers. They are either trigger-happy or they are prejudiced. And when they see a young Black man, six-foot- two, six-foot-three, weighing 200 pounds, they are automatically afraid of them, and they think that they have to protect themselves against them simply because of the size of the individual. When we take a look at Eric Gardner up in New York, who was of such size, where he was wrestled to the ground simply because he was selling loose cigarettes, that was all about, we believe, some officer proving that they were not afraid of him and they could take him to the ground and they could deal with him. Of course, it is what triggered his death. There was no need to tackle him. I just saw on television the other day a famous, I believe, tennis player who was standing in New York and was rushed by police because they said he fit the description of someone who had been reported who had committed a crime. Now, when you say that you stopped a young Black man because they fit the description, nobody believes that. We have heard that over and over and over again. And Blacks believe that that is an excuse to stop somebody, and it is a convenient excuse to say, ``Well, we stopped him because he fit the description.'' They don't have any other reason to stop. They have not violated anything, they don't have traffic warrants, et cetera, et cetera. But this excuse has been used over and over again: He fit the description, and that is why we stopped. When people are the victims of those who say they fit the description, of course they are angry. Of course they are going to tell the police officer that they didn't fit the description and they don't like this happening. And that causes another kind of confrontation. So we need to be able to talk with the police chiefs and tell them these kinds of things. And we need to get rid of that culture of silence in the police department. One officer can witness another officer actually committing a crime, he could see that police officer targeting and treating somebody bad, but they will never, ever admit it. They will never, ever report it. That culture of silence and protection is something that we all know about, and it happens every day. So we need to be honest about what the feelings are, and the police need to be honest with us about what they think about what they are doing in these kinds of situations. Even in all that I have heard on television in the last few days, where they supposedly are having townhall meetings, supposedly talking about these issues, I have not heard the real truth come out about how members of the African American community who have witnessed too much of this really feel about the police, and I have not heard the police talk about how they really feel about those that they think are committing crimes or should be stopped or what they understand about them and what is going on in the community. So I am hopeful that we can have a real conversation. Because I want to tell you, as we take a look at what has happened just in the last year or so, what we find is 1,205 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since January 1, 2015. In the first 6 months of 2016, 465 people were shot and killed. In 2016, 491 were shot and killed. In 2016, there was a 6-percent increase in the number of such deaths during the first 6 months of the year. Fatal encounters are strikingly similar to last year's shootings, where Blacks continue to be shot at 2.5 times the rate of Whites. Police have shot and killed a young Black man ages 18-29, such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, 175 times since January 2015, and 24 of them were known to be unarmed. So whether we are talking about Michael Brown, Eric Gardner, Ezell Ford, Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Kimani Gray, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, Rekia Boyd, Laquan McDonald, or the last two that we have seen on television almost every night for the last week or so, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and names that we don't know-- those names are not mentioned here because they have not been reported and we don't have the kind of database for these killings that we should have. That is another recommendation that I am making, that we must have a database that is kept so that we can know for sure exactly who is being killed and why, supposedly, they are being killed. This is tough business that we have to deal with. This is painful business that we have to deal with. But when you see those mothers on television, as I saw last evening, saying: I have a 14-year-old, and I am afraid for his life every minute he is not with me. And folks tell us that you should talk to them more and you should tell them how they should act when they are stopped by the police. I want to tell you, every African American mother and father that I know talk to their children about the police. They are afraid that they are going to be killed. They are afraid that they are not going to come home once they leave the house. They talk to them about how to conduct themselves if they are stopped by the police. While they shouldn't have to act any differently than anybody else, mothers and fathers of Black children talk to their children about that all the time. They say to them: If they stop you, make sure you keep your hands visible. Put them up on the dashboard so they won't think you are reaching for something. If they ask you to get your driver's license out, you tell them to take it out of your pocket because you are afraid that if you go in your pocket to get your driver's license there will be an excuse to shoot you down. Too many of them have said and will say, ``We thought they were reaching for a weapon.'' Black people, for the most part, tell their young boys and their young men not only to keep their hands visible, but don't talk back to the police, make sure you don't look as if you are reaching for something, and be very, very careful that you don't do anything that will cause them to shoot you. Now, this is real. This goes on all the time. I don't know if people know or understand this. None of us are saying that we want our children to be in confrontation, that we want our men to be in confrontation, that we want our girls to be in confrontation with the police. We always teach everything that we can about staying out of a situation where there will be an excuse to kill or shoot you. Body cameras. We have advocated for body cameras. And now we find that, in this last incident, I believe, in Minnesota, the body camera somehow was on the ground and it wasn't working; or the body camera was not turned on, in some instances that we hear about; or even when the body camera records, in many instances, and maybe under practices and law in some cities, that information cannot be revealed for some long period of time until after certain things have taken place within the police department. So we have talked about that and we have advocated for body cameras. We were hoping that they would help us to understand what was going on. But we find that just plain old citizens with a cell phone are doing more to document what is happening than the body cameras that we advocated for. As a matter of fact, but for cell phones, we would not have known what happened in Baton Rouge and we would not have known what happened in Minnesota. The sight of a man being pinned down on the ground, unable to move, a gun being put at very close range to his body and being killed is more than most folks can bear. Most folks looking at what happened in Baton Rouge and what happened in Minnesota know that something is wrong with that; that that is not right. It is not just Black folks. There are many White folks who understand and believe it is something wrong with this picture. So while we are talking about gun violence, and we would love to be able to focus on laws that we could create to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, we have got to deal with also what is happening in our country with the confrontations between African American men and boys in particular, and girls, and police officers. So I share this information with you, as difficult as it is to talk about it, because until we get to the point of honesty about what we feel and what we understand and what we believe is going on, we are never going to be able to deal with this problem. I am going to continue to work on this. Like I said, I started in 1994. And while my attention and my career has been diverted to deal with financial services and other kinds of issues on Wall Street, I have got to get back to Main Street, and I have got to get back to the idea that we can do better than this, and that our country cannot continue to not know how to deal with it, but, rather, come up with creative ideas and thoughts and ways by which we can discontinue these killings. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank my Republican colleagues for amending H.R. 5421 in an attempt to improve the status quo for the benefit of securities exchanges and the investors that trade on them and provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with additional discretion in a currently inflexible process. H.R. 5421 would modernize a 1996 law that governs the process used by the SEC in determining whether an approved listing standard of a national securities exchange should be exempt from State regulation and oversight. That outdated process currently requires the SEC to compare listing standards to an imperfect baseline--the standards of the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the NASDAQ Stock Market. Twenty years later, that baseline does not make much sense, as the American Stock Exchange no longer exists, and we have six other exchanges that are approved to list securities without State oversight. It neither seems fair to the other exchanges nor sufficiently protective of investors to allow the three named exchanges to effectively dictate listing standards. However imperfect, the current standard has guided the SEC to create an informal framework to consider certain core listing standards, such as minimum revenue, market capitalization, number of shareholders, and share price. Now, the bill that we marked up in committee would have upended this framework and preempted States for any approval listing standard. I opposed that bill, as I believe it would have removed a valuable analysis that protects investors and ensures appropriate State oversight of smaller companies that may, in the future, list on a venture exchange. Since that time, however, my Republican colleagues have worked to take into account these concerns and have amended the bill for the better. I want to thank Mr. Royce for his leadership and for the work that he has done on this issue and the time that his staff has spent with my staff. Under the bill before us today, the SEC would have nearly a year to engage in a rulemaking to establish minimum core quantitative listing standards that protect investors and the public interest. That rulemaking would provide clarity and transparency to the preemption process and leave the issue of State oversight over small company trading on venture exchanges with the SEC. Most importantly, it would provide investors and interested members of the public the opportunity to comment on the overall process in a space where investors and the public do not have the resources to comment on each of the 1,000 rules proposed each year. I do have some remaining concerns that the bill directs the SEC to implement only core quantitative standards and does not mention qualitative standards. However, under the bill, the quantitative standards are to be informed by qualitative factors like investor protection and the public interest, and the SEC retains its authority to apply other qualitative factors, as it does now, in its initial rule approval and the preemption process. Moreover, I would expect the SEC, in its rulemaking, to establish quantitative standards for some of the qualitative factors that it currently considers, such as the number or percentage of independent board directors and certain shareholder meeting requirements. So I would like to thank Mr. Royce and my Republican colleagues for amending H.R. 5421. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today to continue the discussion that we started in this House about gun violence. Something extraordinary took place here in the House of Representatives. We had Members on this side of the aisle, Democrats, who came to the floor and who sat on the floor in the well of the House. That was extraordinary. No one has ever seen this happen before. Why did this take place? How is it you can get every group in the Democratic Party to basically join in an action that had never taken place before? What am I talking about? I am talking about the Women's Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus. I am talking about New Democrats. I am talking about all of those in our Democratic Party who do not always agree with each other. We work at it, but we have serious and credible disagreements. However, you did not hear any denouncement from any of our Democrats about what we were doing. Why did we do this, and why did we have basically so much support for what we did? When I say ``support,'' I am not simply talking about Democrats. I am talking about people who left their homes, their businesses, and their workplaces and joined us outside. They even stayed for hours in the rain to say to us: Thank you for finally giving voice to this problem that we have in this country on gun violence. The Members of the Democratic Party and those people who were outside basically said: We are sick and tired of the influence that is exerted by the gun lobby. You have the NRA that owns too many Members of Congress and who can tell them what to do. There are Members who are intimidated by the gun lobby and the NRA. So what they do is they hide behind the Constitution and they will tell you that they are defending their constitutional rights. None of us, in what we sat in about, talked about taking away anybody's guns. What we said was we have got to make sure that guns are not in the hands of people who should not have them; people who have committed crimes; people who have committed murder; people who have shown that perhaps something is wrong with them psychologically or emotionally. We should not make it easy for these people to have guns. What should we do about it? We have two very simple bills, and we begged the Speaker of this House to allow us to take up those bills, to debate those bills, to have them voted up or down. Well, the Speaker won't do it. The Speaker won't do it because, as it has been described, he, too, is a handmaiden of the gun lobby, along with all of the other Members afraid to come and represent and to deal with the tough issues that confront us. What were those bills all about? One is very easy to explain: no fly, no buy. What does that mean? It simply means that if you are on a list that says you can't get on an airplane because you are dangerous, we know something about you that will not allow us to allow you to get on an airplane where you may commit an action that could endanger the lives of everybody on that plane and others even on the ground, no fly, no buy. Why should we sell guns to somebody who we have said are too dangerous to fly on the airplane? That is all we wanted on that bill, was a vote to say: Yeah, that makes good sense. If you cannot fly, you should not be able to buy. What is wrong with that? That is very simple. Why can't they take up that bill? Aren't they concerned about who gets on the airplane? Yes. But if you are concerned about who gets on the airplane, you should be concerned about who is able to buy a gun. The other bill is just as clear, just as simple: universal background checks. We need to know who is buying these guns. Somebody will say: Don't we have something about background checks in the law? Ladies and gentlemen, we are not covering what is on the Internet. We are not covering the fact that these gun shows are selling guns out of the back of their cars. They don't know who the people are. They don't care who they are, and they walk away with guns, and they go out and they kill people with them.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I joined with my colleagues here in the House of Representatives, and we took an extraordinary action. We sat in, we rallied, we challenged the Republican leadership, and we spoke out about gun violence in a way that we had never done before. We said to the leadership: Enough is enough; we have got to do something about these mass murders; we have got to do something about these guns. We challenged the leadership because we all know that the gun lobby has too much influence and too much control in this House. We also know that too many of our Members will not confront this issue on the opposite side of the aisle because, as it has been said, they are the handmaidens of the NRA. So we gathered, we spoke out, and we were talking about two simple bills that we wanted them to vote for. We are trying to educate the American people that those who do not want to go against the gun lobby will have the American citizens believe that we are trying to take away their guns. We are not trying to take away anybody's guns. This is not about the Constitution or the Second Amendment. We simply said we want to bring to the floor two simple pieces of legislation. One is no fly, no buy. What does that mean? It simply means if you are on the list of persons who are prevented from flying because you are suspected of being a possible person involved in terrorism or something of that sort, you cannot get on an airplane. It is something about your background, what you have done, and the connections that you have that will not allow you to place our people on the airplane at risk. So what we are saying is if you can't fly because you will place fliers at risk, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. So that is what no fly, no buy is all about. If you are too dangerous to fly, then you shouldn't be able to go and purchase a gun. That is very simple. The other is universal background checks, and that is very simple. We have some background check laws, but still there are people who sell guns out of the back of their car at these gun shows, and they have no background checks. They could be murderers, they could be people who are involved with serious domestic violence, they could be people who are dangerous, and they could be mentally ill. We are saying we have to have universal background checks. What is controversial about those two bills? But they won't pay attention. They will not take up the bill. As a matter of fact, the leadership is threatening us. They want to charge us with violations of the House rules, take us to the Ethics Committee, and have us sanctioned in some way because they say we have violated the rules. Well, I say to them: I won't be intimidated. I am not afraid of them or the Ethics Committee. If they want to take us to the Ethics Committee, come on, let's go, because we are going to stand up for what we believe in, and we are not going to be intimidated by being charged with violation of the rules of the House. Now, while I am talking about not being intimidated by anybody, I want to congratulate and thank Mr. Al Green of Texas for what he says has been a 68-year journey where he got up in our caucus today, and he took this floor in a way that I have not seen any Member of Congress in the years that I have been here take the floor and just bare their hearts and just say what is on their mind. I have never seen a Member of this House come to tears and beg us to do something about the killing of Black men, in particular, that is going on. While we are dealing with gun violence--and we are dealing with gun violence to protect everybody--I want to tell you, I have been here when we have had the mothers up here from Newtown. I went to Charleston, South Carolina, where the Emanuel Nine were killed, and I stayed up all night with people placing flowers in front of the church. I literally went to Mr. Aguilar and sat with him when the San Bernardino massacre happened. We were here when Columbine happened, and we all thought at that time that we have got to do something. We have done nothing. Then there is Orlando, Florida; there is Aurora; there is Arizona; there is Virginia Tech; and on and on and on. We have been fighting to do something about these massacres. The police should be with us. The police should not complicate our job by doing what is being done. You have heard about the latest two killings in Baton Rouge and in Minnesota. They are absolutely heartbreaking. I listened last evening to this woman crying, screaming, and saying: ``God, please don't let him die.''

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Well, you may stop me now because my time is up. But I will be back. I will not stop on these two issues: massacres and the killing of Black men in particular.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of the memory of Darryl R. Burt, II, yet another Black man who lost his life to senseless violence. He never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of 5-year-old Aaron Shannon, Jr., a victim of gun violence shot down in his backyard, who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank Mr. Serrano for yielding. You just described this as a shot across the bow to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and you are absolutely right. They are attempting to tell them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile finance companies. This amendment is about protecting wrongdoers who gouge racial and ethnic minorities with high markups on car loans even when their income, their credit scores, and their financial backgrounds are the same as Whites. The amendment is about protecting companies like Ally Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, all of whom have had to enter into settlements with the Bureau over their indirect auto loan practices. All told, the CFPB, again, has secured nearly $162 million in borrower relief and penalties to help these borrowers. In their investigations, the Bureau found that minority borrowers paid more than $200 over the life of a car loan than White borrowers, even when controlling for borrowers' creditworthiness. Studies have shown that minority borrowers are less likely to be aware of interest rate markups. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, 68 percent of all borrowers were unaware that dealers have the ability to mark up an interest rate above what a lender offers based on their creditworthiness and the car being sold, but nearly 75 percent of African American and Hispanic borrowers are unaware that the practice of dealer markups even exists. The guidance that this amendment seeks to nullify clearly outlines steps that lenders can take to protect borrowers from potentially discriminatory lending practices that often occur without the borrower even being aware of it occurring. So we know what the intent of this amendment is, but on a practical level, the amendment will only invite confusion into the industry. After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders' obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law. The issue has come up before in this Congress, but no matter where you stood on H.R. 1737, a bill we considered last year, you should be against this amendment. To the Members on the opposite side of the aisle, you are supposed to have a poverty agenda, and you claim that you are taking on a new direction, that you want to have reduced poverty and deal with the problems of minorities and people in rural communities, et cetera. This is what keeps poverty in these communities. We have these blue suede, slick dealers of all kinds--whether they are automobile lenders or payday loans or auto loans, all of this stuff--coming into these communities, taking advantage of the most vulnerable people who want to get out of poverty. You say you want to help, but then you come in and you attack the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You want to do everything to undermine their authority. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, here we go again. It is appropriations season in the House of Representatives, so we know what that means: once again, the American public can bear witness to our Republican colleagues' underfunding our Wall Street cops on the beat and attacking Wall Street reform with endless budget riders. Indeed, by my count, there were 34 separate Republican amendments filed to the Rules Committee that would undermine, undercut, or underfund our financial regulators. These amendments span the gamut of special interest giveaways--from undoing critical consumer protections to exposing investors to financial predation, to undermining financial stability. First, and perhaps most importantly, both the base bill and many of the amendments we are considering today stab at the heart of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the sole regulator tasked with protecting students, servicemembers, seniors, and other borrowers in the consumer lending marketplace. To name just a few of the provisions that would harm the CFPB, this bill would: end the Bureau's independent funding; bog the CFPB down in gridlock by replacing its efficient Director structure with a partisan, bureaucratic commission; halt the Bureau's efforts to end forced arbitration clauses in credit card contracts and give consumers their day in court; rescind the CFPB's guidance that helps to prevent racial and ethnic discrimination in automobile lending markets; defund the Bureau's efforts to stop predatory lending to borrowers looking to purchase a manufactured home; and make it harder for the CFPB to bring enforcement actions against bad actors. What is more, the bill would halt the CFPB's efforts to stop the debt trap created by predatory payday lending. As a report released just last month by my office revealed, these lenders are adept at skirting State laws. That is why we need strong Federal rules of the road. Unfortunately, this bill would ensure that payday lenders can continue to rip off our constituents and push them deeper into the cycle of debt. Democrats will offer amendments today to remove these harmful provisions in the bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support our efforts. This bill also would cut funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission--that is, the SEC--which oversees our growing, complex capital markets and needs sufficient resources to police them effectively. Republicans have shown us time and time again that they don't want the SEC to be able to do its job. That is why they are proposing nearly 15 percent less than the SEC has said it needs to properly oversee the 26,000 market participants under its purview. It is also 3 percent less than the agency received last year, which already was a shoestring budget for a regulator tasked with implementing and enforcing significant aspects of Dodd-Frank, the JOBS Act, and other important legislation. To make matters worse, the bill, along with Republican amendments, would limit critical information for investors in companies by rescinding current or future disclosure requirements on CEO pay, climate change, conflict minerals, and political spending by big corporations, as well as limiting shareholders' ability to elect directors to corporate boards. Finally, the bill also undercuts the Financial Stability Oversight Council--that is, FSOC--which keeps our financial system safe by looking out for systemic risk throughout the system and closing the gaps in our once-fractured regulatory framework. Standing with other Democrats, I will offer amendments to strike some of the most harmful provisions of this bill. But make no mistake, even if these amendments were adopted, Democrats cannot support this legislation, which so gravely underfunds and undermines Wall Street reform that it is fair to say it would expose us to another financial crisis. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this very harmful legislation.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from North Carolina for his efforts to work with me to craft this bipartisan legislation. H.R. 4855 is an example of how Congress can assist startups to finance their operations while still protecting the investors who entrust their hard-earned funds to those companies. Equity crowdfunding, through which startup companies sell stock to hundreds or even thousands of everyday people, has been and will always be a high-risk, high-reward investment. The sad reality is that most new businesses fail. As a result, Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission have put in place guardrails to prevent less-sophisticated investors from suffering financial ruin. In 2012, Congress cautiously approached equity crowdfunding by creating a number of investor protections in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act. The SEC followed our directions and finalized a crowdfunding rule that protects investors by setting reasonable investment limits based on income and provides helpful disclosures for investors to weigh the risk. Last month, those rules went live, with hundreds of businesses successfully raising capital that, in turn, funds American jobs. H.R. 4855, as amended in committee, seeks to enhance the investor and company experience in crowdfunding. The bill would authorize crowdfunding portals to pool investors together in order to make a joint investment in a business. These vehicles would only make investments in one company and would be advised by a registered investment adviser with a fiduciary duty to the fund. Importantly, the investors would have the same rights to sue the company as if they had directly invested in the company itself. This provision will also aid companies as they will be able to more efficiently make financial decisions, provided that the investment adviser agrees that they are in the best interest of the fund's investors. H.R. 4855 also clarifies that as long as a crowdfunding company continues to make ongoing disclosures to investors required under the SEC's rules, it would not have to make the more detailed public reports until it had either a $75 million value or $50 million in revenue. This change is consistent with the levels set under Regulation A, another exempt offering sold to retail investors. I am pleased that the amended bill no longer includes problematic provisions that were opposed by advocates like the Consumer Federation of America. Instead, the bill is now crafted to make target improvements to crowdfunding for all investors and startups. Now, although crowdfunding should be viewed as a highly risky investment, especially for retail investors, both of the changes in H.R. 4855 will ensure a longer choice of high-quality crowdfunding companies and a higher degree of finance savvy for investors. Mr. Speaker and Members, I had reservations about crowdfunding. I had real concerns, but I am very pleased that I was able to work with Mr. McHenry, and he was so very cooperative in dealing with those concerns that made me feel even better about crowdfunding than I had been feeling. So I am just so hopeful that this works and it works well, and that even though there is some risk involved in this, that we have the opportunity for people who want to take a little risk to go out there and to be able to organize the kind of funding that perhaps can make them reap substantial profits in a real credible way. So I want to thank, again, Mr. McHenry for his cooperation and for the work and the time that he has put into this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, again, I am very pleased to join with Mr. McHenry on this legislation. I really have no further requests for time, and I am going to yield back the balance of my time because I am so looking forward to getting back to the discussion that we are going to have later on this evening on guns and gun violence. I want my constituents to know I have not abandoned that issue. Others have not abandoned that issue. We look forward to really debating whether or not we are going to make sure that people who are on the no-fly list certainly can't buy guns, and we want universal background checks. I know this has nothing to do with this bill, but I will just take this opportunity to say that. 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 and Members, this bill, H.R. 4854, is an example of how the two sides can work together. I worked with Mr. McHenry on this legislation. It just goes to show that when the opposite side of the aisle is not focused on trying to destroy and undo Dodd-Frank, we can get to doing some credible legislation. So I am very, very pleased about this legislation. It is another piece of legislation intended to help our Nation's startups and the venture capitalists who take a chance on them by providing a targeted exemption for certain venture capital funds. It is also a piece of legislation that appropriately balances the ability of a startup to raise capital with the need to protect investors in the startup. When we fail to strike this balance, investors suffer, small businesses suffer; and when taken to the extreme, our entire economy can suffer. During consideration of this bill in committee, Mr. McHenry and I offered an amendment to create a new exemption for qualifying venture capital funds that have no more than 250 investors and only $10 million in invested capital. These smaller funds will allow angel investor groups to better pool their resources among more accredited investors to make targeted, high-impact investments in the very companies they create the most jobs: startups. This structure is used today by AngelList, a company that matches investors meeting certain income and asset thresholds to pool their money into a special purpose fund and invest together in startup companies. Importantly, both the companies and the investors benefit from this structure, compared with making hundreds of smaller direct investments. A company, for example, only has a single point of contact, the angel fund advised by fiduciary, rather than hundreds of investors who all must individually approve corporate actions such as acquisitions and expanding ownership. Investors also like this structure because they can delegate monitoring the startups they invest in to the investment adviser to fund. Such monitoring may be significant, considering that investors typically diversify among 30 to 80 companies. H.R. 4854, as amended, is appropriately tailored to only certain venture capital funds, which must invest at least 80 percent of their committed capital in the equity of small companies. Under the bill, those funds must have no more than 250 investors and no more than $10 million in this invested capital, ensuring that they are small enough that investors are able to monitor and manage their investments with the funds. This language ensures that we aren't creating a loophole for other investment companies, like mutual funds, to avoid regulation, nor are we providing relief to other private funds, like hedge funds or private equity funds, that have very little restrictions and investor protections. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation of Mr. McHenry's efforts to make changes to this bill addressing some of the concerns of investor advocates, like the Consumer Federation of America and Americans for Financial Reform. His efforts have made this a good bill that deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.