Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am sure there are those who wonder why we on the opposite side of the aisle work so hard to pay attention to our constituents as it relates to investment and why we work so hard to pay attention to our consumers. I will tell you why. Everyone recognizes what happened in 2008 in this country. We literally had a meltdown. We went into a recession--almost a depression. Why did we do that? We went into a recession and almost a depression because our regulatory agencies were not paying attention and people were being taken advantage of. We had a very difficult time trying to explain to the people of this country why we had so many foreclosures, why people were losing their homes, and why communities were so displaced. But we recognized that our regulatory agencies who had the responsibility for oversight and who had the responsibility for making sure people weren't taken advantage of just had not been doing their jobs. I want you to know that with Dodd-Frank reforms, we have gone a long way to correct that. In addition to looking at our markets and looking at Wall Street, we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that is doing a magnificent job in looking out for our consumers and making sure that what happened that led up to the 2008 meltdown does not happen again in America. So I am very pleased that the Obama administration in the last 75 months has had consecutive job growth. It looks as if it is about 14.5 million private-sector jobs. Of course, when Mr. Obama took over, we know that about 800 jobs per month were being lost. So we don't take our job lightly, and we don't play with this. We want to make sure that there is capital available for startups because we support business and we absolutely support small business. We want to make sure they have access to capital. But what we don't want is we don't want, then, to be tricked or fooled or to be led into so-called opportunities that are really not opportunities at all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am so pleased that the gentleman from New Jersey recognized that the regulatory agencies were not doing their job. We don't agree on much, but he did indicate just a moment ago that he agreed that the regulatory agencies had not protected consumers or our small business people--or anybody--and that is why we ended up with the Dodd-Frank reform. We may disagree about Dodd-Frank reform, but I think with that recognition I am sure he would logically conclude that something had to be done, and so I am very pleased about that. Let me just say to Mr. McHenry again, I want to thank him for the work that he has done and the leadership that he has provided. He is absolutely correct, whether it is in the cities or in urban areas, we need to have access to capital for our small businesses and our start- ups. In addition, he has led the way for us to make investing and venture capital, et cetera, more accessible. I think we still have more work to do. One of the things we are going to have to take a very close look at is why our bigger banks and financial institutions are not investing in these communities and why they are not welcoming small businesses in to the banks and to these financial institutions and listen to their dreams and their ideas about businesses and provide the capital for that. Again, I am very pleased about what he has done, his leadership, and the work that we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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, H.R. 4538 is a bill intended to better aid our law enforcement agencies, State and Federal regulators, and agencies assisting seniors to quickly respond to and prevent financial abuse of elders. Currently, financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, and financial advisers are required to report suspicious activity, including cases of suspected abuse of our Nation's seniors. Nevertheless, industry has raised concerns that they are prevented from doing so out of fear that they might later be sued. Even though our regulators have taken considerable steps to allay such concerns, it seems that congressional action may be necessary to ensure that financial institutions take actions to stop elders from being swindled in their vulnerable years. Like Ms. Sinema, I also want to ensure that when any employee at a financial institution sees something suspicious, she immediately says something to the appropriate authorities and regulators. Indeed, I recently introduced legislation with a similar objective of ensuring the continued flow of critically important reporting of suspicious activity as it relates to terrorism, money laundering, and other serious illicit activities. Although it is not explicitly specified in the legislation before us today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should also use its existing authority to set standards for this training, and is authorized to ensure that the training is being conducted. H.R. 4538 is a good first step, but should not be the end of our efforts to rein in elder abuse. For example, State regulators are going further and mandating that financial firms make such reports to authorities instead of making the reports voluntary. The States and FINRA, the regulator of broker-dealers, also want to authorize financial advisers to put holds on financial transactions before a swindler can run off with the retirement savings of our Nation's grandparents. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the numerous changes Ms. Sinema has incorporated to improve the bill. These edits ensure that the bill covers all financial institutions and will enhance reporting of suspected elder abuse. However, more changes are still needed before the bill can be enacted, including language suggested by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other advocates. I hope that the Senate's sponsors will work with the administration and others to ensure their suggested changes are incorporated into the bill before it is enacted into law. However, today, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4538. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. ``I could not imagine my family having to read about this online. I kept reading. In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings. ``It's like if you were to read an article where a car was hit, and found dented, in a ditch. But maybe the car enjoyed being hit. Maybe the other car didn't mean to hit it, just bump it up a little bit. Cars get in accidents all the time, people aren't always paying attention, can we really say who's at fault. ``And then, at the bottom of the article, after I learned about the graphic details of my own sexual assault, the article listed his swimming times. She was found breathing, unresponsive with her underwear six inches away from her bare stomach curled in fetal position. By the way, he's really good at swimming. Throw in my mile time if that's what we're doing. I'm good at cooking, put that in there, I think the end is where you list your extracurriculars to cancel out all the sickening things that've happened. ``The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it's upsetting, just know that I'm okay, I'm right here, and I'm okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up. ``The night after it happened, he said he didn't know my name, said he wouldn't be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn't mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing. ``Dancing is a cute term; was it snapping fingers and twirling dancing, or just bodies grinding up against each other in a crowded room? I wonder if kissing was just faces sloppily pressed up against each other? When the detective asked if he had planned on taking me back to his dorm, he said no. When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn't know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away. He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me.''

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, we have had another moment of silence, a moment of silence indicating that somehow we are concerned about what happened in Orlando, Florida. It is not good enough. How many times have we done this? Whether we are talking about Sandy Hook, where those babies were killed, or we are talking about North Carolina or we are talking about San Bernardino or Aurora, Colorado, we keep getting up with a moment of silence because we don't want to deal with what is really going on. This Republican leadership is pitiful. It is disgusting that they don't have the guts or the commitment to call it like it is and bring a bill to this floor to get rid of assault weapons. That weapon that killed those 50 people and harmed those other 53 is a weapon that is designed for war. Don't tell me about your hunting concerns. This AR-15 has nothing to do with hunting. This is about killing. And so this leadership is spineless, it is gutless, and it deserves not to have the ability to get up on this floor and talk about responsibility or innovation----

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. * * *

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I know you don't want me to talk while you are waiting for your talking points from the leadership.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California.--or any of this other stuff that they are talking about. I want to say over and over again, I don't care if my time is up, you stop me from talking if you will. The fact of the matter is, we should all be on this. Business as usual? I don't think so. We should have stopped everything this evening, concentrated on how we can get a bill to the floor.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise once again to discuss the harsh realities of homelessness in America and to call attention to the Republicans' so-called poverty agenda that simply ignores the fact that men, women, and children are sleeping on the streets of America, eating out of garbage cans, and using our sidewalks and streets for restrooms. Homelessness is one of the most tragic and disappointing reminders of the overwhelming poverty in this country. According to the latest estimates, almost 600,000 Americans are homeless. It is a problem in virtually every district, and it affects people from very different walks of life: 37 percent of the homeless population are represented in families, 15 percent are chronically homeless, 8 percent are veterans, and 6.5 percent are children. While there is a claim that some progress has been made to decrease homelessness in some communities, a lot more needs to be done, especially in some of our largest cities where homelessness is, sadly, increasing exponentially: in my hometown of Los Angeles, homelessness increased 20 percent between 2014 and 2015; in New York City, homelessness increased 11 percent between 2014 and 2015; and in Chicago, there was an 8 percent increase in that timeframe. As public policymakers and Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to deal with problems and circumstances that undermine and harm our way of life. We are a people who cherish religion. In every religion, there is a reference to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and clothing the naked. Where are the Republican Members who regularly hold prayer meetings, who attend church on Sunday in their districts, but yet they are supporting this fake poverty agenda that does not even mention homelessness? Where are the Members who claim to honor our veterans, yet walk past them on the sidewalk in their tents and sleeping under our bridges? We know that we can functionally end homelessness and alleviate poverty in this country. We know that Federal resources and the social safety nets are incredibly effective at lifting up struggling families. We know that if we properly support the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other Federal agencies that we could create the necessary housing units and provide the social services that our neighbors need to get off the streets. What we need is, simply, the political will to get it done. Unfortunately, we do not have the support from Republicans whose sham of a poverty agenda released this week would only exacerbate homelessness and punish the poor. Take the Republican approach to housing assistance, for example. For years, they have cut funding for HUD programs, leaving more than 75 percent of eligible families without any housing help at all. And their latest poverty plan recycles some of the most harmful changes Republicans have sought for our housing programs. They refuse to acknowledge the realities of unaffordable rents that require families to earn almost triple the minimum wage to be able to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. And they want to impose these so-called work requirements that simply don't work if you ignore the already high unemployment rates in certain areas as well as the need to invest in job training, education, child care, and other social services to make it possible for individuals to obtain stable employment. What the Republicans have put forth is truly the wrong way forward. Fortunately, Democrats know what it takes; and when we talk about issues of homelessness in particular, there is a very simple solution to this very real problem. That is why I have introduced H.R. 4888, the Ending Homelessness Act of 2016. Now, a lot of people will say: Oh, my goodness, did you see how much money is in that bill? This bill would devote over $13 billion over 5 years to housing assistance programs and create the housing units and services that we so desperately need to get people off the streets. So while others will point to this bill and talk about the cost of it, the fact of the matter is, this is the richest country in the world, and we spend money on so many other things that are not as important as taking care of our most vulnerable population. So, yes, this is a $13 billion bill. We have to stop playing with this issue and thinking it is going to go away simply because we don't want to acknowledge it. We have to pay for the possibility of ending this homelessness. I cannot bear the thought of children sleeping in their cars every night and getting up and going to school the next day.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Yarmuth for hosting this hour. Muhammad Ali was a good friend. He was someone that I had known that I had worked on some projects with. But more than that, my husband was one of those athletes. My husband was then the linebacker for the Cleveland Browns when Bill Russell and my husband, Sidney Williams, and Jim Brown all got together to support Muhammad Ali when, of course, he was not allowed to be a conscientious objector and was threatened with prison. I got to know him sometime after that. We used his home for a very special event. I got to know his former wife, Veronica, and his children. One of his children worked in one of my programs. This comes at a very difficult time for all of us. I loved him because he had courage. He had the courage to give up his career, had the courage to threaten to be imprisoned, and had the courage to fight. The Nation of Islam stood with him, and these athletes all stood with him. He was a great man. When he said he was The Greatest, he really was, because he was an unusual extraordinaire. I will be at the funeral on Friday. I will be there with the family and the rest of the athletes that are still living that are going to be there to honor him.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I am appreciative to the gentleman from Massachusetts for allowing me to speak on my amendment. Mr. Chair and Members, a lack of opportunity for Federal contracting is one of the main factors of the widening racial wealth gap. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has a critical responsibility to focus on increasing minority and female inclusion in the job market; yet, only a fraction of Federal contracts goes to minority- or female-owned businesses. This is partly why the wealth gap and extreme disparities in racial incomes continue. Amendment No. 49 ensures that we meet important contracting goals by analyzing a 5-year study by the GAO on how the DOD contracts with minority- and female-owned businesses. While there are many ways the government can address the issue of more equitable contracting, one important and more immediate impact, I believe, the Federal Government can have is by providing more opportunities for minority-owned businesses. The DOD spends roughly $285 billion a year on contracting, more than all Federal agencies combined. With such large purchasing power, it is imperative that these funds are used not only to provide the best services for the Department of Defense, but also to distribute fairly and wisely in all communities. The study proposed is the first step toward identifying where those opportunities lie for great inclusion. This amendment further emphasizes and underscores the importance of minorities in both our local and national communities.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I am deeply concerned about the homelessness crisis that is plaguing our country. Homelessness affects the very fabric of our communities, and it degrades the values upon which our country was built. Every American has the right to safe, decent, and affordable housing; but according to the latest estimates, nearly 600,000 Americans are currently homeless, over 83,000 of whom are chronically homeless and nearly 130,000 of whom are children who are under the age of 18, and these numbers are increasing in some of our major cities. Sadly, in my own hometown, in Los Angeles, homelessness increased by a staggering 20 percent between 2014 and 2015, and it continues to rise. But this is not just about the numbers. When I visit our homeless neighbors on Skid Row in Los Angeles, I see how these Americans are facing chronic mental and physical problems that make it even harder to rehabilitate their lives. When I speak to families that are dealing with homelessness, I see the toll this housing insecurity is taking on their children, who can't concentrate in school because they are sleeping in cars at night. There is a solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker. We just need the political will and resources. That is why earlier this year I introduced comprehensive legislation to provide the resources we need to truly end homelessness in America. My bill, H.R. 4888, the Ending Homelessness Act of 2016, would provide over $13 billion over 5 years to strengthen programs and initiatives that will help us end homelessness in this country. The money will help to create approximately 410,000 units of housing to end homelessness for the estimated 407,000 homeless households in the country. This includes permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless, for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher units, and deeply affordable units through the National Housing Trust Fund. My bill would also provide the resources to increase the number of outreach workers on the streets, working with homeless populations. Furthermore, my bill would provide technical assistance to help States and localities align their health and housing systems. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has reported that major progress toward ending homelessness in this country has virtually stalled without new funding. So there is a real need to invest in our Federal housing programs and to support our local service providers who are on the streets helping the homeless every day. Passing H.R. 4888 would be an investment that would pay dividends in the long run. Research has shown that when we provide housing to chronically homeless individuals, the cost to the taxpayer is significantly less than if we allowed them to remain homeless. For example, Los Angeles County's Project 50 found that providing permanent supportive housing to 50 chronically homeless individuals saved the county close to $250,000 over 2 years. Similar results have been found in other major cities as well as in small cities and in rural areas alike. But this isn't just about the cost or the savings, Mr. Speaker. It is about recognizing the crisis that we face as a Nation and having an honest conversation about what we really need to do to put an end to homelessness. We are the richest country in the world, and every person should have access to safe, decent, and affordable housing. This should be a bipartisan issue. We must, all of us, Democrats and Republicans, work together to finally end homelessness in this country once and for all. Mr. Speaker and Members, I will be on this floor every chance I get to force the real debate and the real conversation about this crisis that we are confronted with in America. We cannot continue to walk past homeless, helpless, mentally ill, physically ill homeless people on the streets and pretend we don't see them. They are there. It is unconscionable that we allow this homelessness to continue to grow and to be on our streets. In Los Angeles, when you go to so-called Skid Row, we have people on the streets who are lined all the way up to the steps of City Hall. Elected officials, ministers, community organizations, let's get together with our legislators, let's pass H.R. 4888, and stop the homelessness in America.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 88, which would invalidate the Department of Labor's recently finalized fiduciary duty rule and threaten our seniors' retirement savings to the tune of $17 billion per year. The rule closes loopholes and gaps in our laws so that all financial advisers act in their clients' best interest when providing advice on retirement investments. This is an essential reform that will protect our seniors and ensure our retirees are financially secure. Not only is this rule a commonsense update, but the Department of Labor worked diligently to address all legitimate stockholder concerns. Secretary Perez should be commended for his exemplary leadership on this issue. The Department of Labor spent countless hours reviewing comments, meeting with industry and other interested stakeholders, and responding to lawmakers' concerns. That effort has resulted in a strong, workable rule that takes into account different business models across the industry. For example, the final rule specifically allows firms to recommend proprietary products as long as they make certain disclosures and act in the clients' best interest. It streamlines those required disclosures to make it easier for firms to comply. It provides flexibility in the timing of a contract between a client and an adviser, and it establishes clear distinctions between what is considered education and advice. Overall, the final rule is carefully crafted to protect investors while creating a workable process for financial advisers. What is more, the rule is supported by hundreds of stakeholders who represent the financial services industry, the public interest, civil rights, consumers, labor unions, and many investment advisers who are already providing advice to savers under a fiduciary standard, yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so intent on dismantling this crucial rule. This resolution is not their first attempt. H.R. 1090, which went through my committee and passed the House largely along party lines, would have imposed unacceptable delays on the Department of Labor's rulemaking effort. Different measures were considered in other committees that would have replaced the rule with a harmful alternative, and riders were attempted on appropriations bills to prevent the department from working on this rule altogether. Now, Republicans may have the votes to pass the disapproval resolution on a simple majority, but the President will veto this bill, and Democrats will stand strong to ensure that they cannot override that veto. We will ensure that the laws protecting our seniors' savings are as robust as possible in a fair market. We will ensure that hardworking Americans can trust their financial advisers and make sound investments, and we will ensure that everyone has a right to retire with dignity and security.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act. This bill will make changes to investor protections under the JOBS Act that I believe are ill-advised and could lead to unintended consequences for our regulatory framework. It would do so by broadening the scope of when private securities offerings can be solicited or advertised to the public without first verifying that the purchaser is financially sophisticated enough to understand the risk involved, what we call ``accredited investors.'' Specifically, the bill would require the SEC to amend its safe harbor rules for private placements under Rule 506 of Regulation D so that the current verification requirements for general solicitation and advertising do not effectively apply to sales events that are sponsored by certain groups, colleges, nonprofits, trade associations, or angel investor groups, for example. The bill's intent is to expand the role of angel investors in capital formation. It is a laudable goal, but it is one that needs appropriate rules to ensure investors have the protection and legal recourse needed to make sound investments. So, while the bill would limit the amount and type of information that can be communicated for these events, it would still allow companies to condition the markets for their securities and offer them to any member of the public who walks in the door. Let me be clear. If a university wants to sponsor a so-called demo day with companies that want to pitch their ideas and products, they already can, and the entire public can attend. The companies, however, just can't talk about offers or sell securities in their companies. I am concerned that this bill, however, would cause real harm to retail investors. For example, a hedge fund could set up an event that is sponsored by a questionable college, like Corinthian, could pass out flyers on campus that advertise their shares, and then sell those shares to anyone who had attended the event, including the students who may know nothing about how this whole operation works. They would not have to take reasonable steps to verify that these purchasers are accredited investors. Furthermore, events sponsored by government entities, nonprofits, and universities are likely to attract the very people we are trying to protect, investors who are not accredited and do not have enough financial sophistication or wherewithal to understand the investments or bear their high risk of loss. We created the Rule 506 exemption under the JOBS Act to expand the market for private offerings. Private companies can now advertise and solicit offerings to the general public, which helps them to raise the capital they need to grow their businesses. In exchange for the expanded framework and lower levels of investor protection, we passed a simple amendment that I offered to require companies to just take reasonable steps to verify that the purchaser of the security is an accredited investor. The intent was simple. If a company is going to advertise riskier private offerings, it must ensure that the buyer has the necessary income and assets to qualify for such a purchase rather than rely on so-called self-certification. The bill would effectively reverse this sensible amendment during these sales events. At best, the bill is also unnecessary. The SEC has already provided relief to angel investor groups if they curate the people who attend these sales events. They have to either make sure they have a preexisting relationship with the investor or verify their income and assets at the time of purchase, which is consistent with our regulatory framework. I have offered an amendment, which will be debated later today, that would codify the SEC's relief and prevent harm to everyday investors. It would also limit the exemptions to operating companies so that shell companies and investment vehicles, like hedge funds, can't solicit potentially risky offerings to unknowing investors. These revisions to the bill would strike an appropriate balance between capital formation and investor protection while still supporting angel investor groups. However, without my amendment, I cannot support this bill. 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 continue to 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, we have no further speakers.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.