Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members, when my colleague from Massachusetts came to the floor and started to talk about this bill, he said this is a bad bill, and included in this bill a total of five bad bills. As we go through each of these bills, we cannot help but wonder why any public policymaker would want to endanger small businesses and investors in the way that this bill does. One must ask one's self why, why would any elected official want to eliminate financial disclosures for employees regarding their stock compensation? Why would you want to do that? Why don't you want employees to know what they are being given? Why don't you want employees to understand that this stock that they are being given may or may not be worth the paper that it is written on? Why would we want to keep this information away from them? As it was stated by the gentlewoman from Illinois, she said basically that many of these companies are not increasing wages. As a matter of fact, we have stagnation in wages in this country and in all of the major companies, for example. So what is happening is these employees believe that when they are being given stock instead of a raise, then maybe they have something valuable. They need to know what they are getting. They need to know exactly what their company is holding out to them is valuable. So I raise the question, why would any public policymaker want to keep this information from employees? Further, the opposite side of the aisle always talks about they are for dealing with crime, that they are about criminal justice. But here they are allowing bad actors to engage in small business mergers and acquisitions. I am talking about people who have been convicted. I am talking about people whom you have administrative orders against. I am talking about swindlers. I am talking about bad people that will be allowed, by this bill, to engage in small business mergers and acquisitions. I don't understand it, and I don't know why. Increasingly, the people of this country are looking at the Members of Congress, and they are saying that they are not with us, they are against us, and that we don't have anybody that is really protecting our interests. More and more, it is being discussed. They are finally getting on to it that somehow too many of the Members of Congress are siding with the big guys, siding with the large corporations, and with the big banks, and not looking out for the interests of the people. They want to know why. Again, title III of this bill would significantly expand an exemption for registration granted by the SEC to certain mergers and acquisition brokers who deal with small businesses without providing significant protections for those businesses or investors. Last Congress when we considered this exemption, it was meant to prompt action by the SEC to finalize its no-action letter to exempt these merger and acquisition brokers from registration. Two weeks after that bill passed the House floor, the SEC granted relief. Yet you wouldn't know it if you read this bill. This bill ignores that relief, and, worse, it inexplicably omits eight--omits eight--of the important investment protections that it includes. As a result, it would allow, again, these bad actors, these cheaters, these people who commit fraud, and these scammers to use this exemption providing them with an opportunity just to swindle our small businesses. Yet they claim they support small business. It is fashionable to say, ``I am for small business.'' Everybody is for small business. But when you take a look at what we do, you can determine who is for the small business and who really are for the big businesses, for the swindlers, and for the cheaters who rob small businesses of the opportunity to be successful. It would also allow M&A brokers to merge public shell companies that have no assets of their own. Even some of my Republican colleagues who will be offering an amendment to add in these two protections are unable to justify the omission, but my friends on the opposite side of the aisle completely ignore the other six investor protections in the SEC's no action relief. I am not going to go any further with that. That is quite obvious. But let me say this. Not only do we have these bad bills with bad public policy, we have a trick in the bill and the bill attempts to tie the hands of the SEC by saying they need to go back--oh, back to 1934 and review everything that they have done, all of these regulations. Do you know why they are doing that? It is the same reason that they won't support them getting additional funding to do their job. They just want to tie their hands so that they won't be able to do the job that they are supposed to do. When we call these bills bad, we are simply not sharing with you some rhetoric about some meaningless harm that may come because of these bills. We are telling you these are harmful bills, these are truly bad bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since the gentleman from New Jersey talked about the President and blamed him for everything he could think of, the administration is sending you a message. The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1675. ``Among other flaws, this bill includes several provisions that pose risks to investors, are overly broad, allow financial institutions to avoid appropriate oversight, and are duplicative of existing administrative authorities.'' Thank you from President Obama. H.R. 1675 is yet another Republican attempt to deregulate Wall Street during the 114th Congress. We have seen time and time again that Republicans will stop at nothing to launch attacks at the expense of American consumers and taxpayers in order to help the largest Wall Street banks. This bill is another example of these tactics. So far during this Congress, Republicans on the Financial Services Committee have taken a number of measures to undermine consumers, undermine investors, and undermine financial stability. Some of the worst examples of this include: Change in the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans hate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they have tried to bog the agency down in partisan gridlock and disfunction. Republicans never wanted to create the CFPB. Now that it is there and it is successful, they want to undercut it. Deregulating large banks by removing the enhanced prudential standards established by the Dodd-Frank Act. This would allow large regional megabanks to escape basic rules related to capital, liquidity, and leverage established after the crisis. Allowing discriminatory markups on automobile loans for racial and ethnic minority borrowers. Republicans want auto finance companies to be able to gouge minority consumers with interest rate markups even when those consumers are equally creditworthy compared to their White counterparts. Removing consumer protections on mortgages for the largest banks. The Republicans would remove vital consumer protections from the riskiest mortgage products sold by the largest banks in this country. The bill also would allow mortgage brokers to get hefty bonuses for steering borrowers into expensive and complex mortgage products. Eliminating Dodd-Frank protections related to manufactured housing loans, thereby allowing consumers to be charged sky-high interest rates without providing them guaranteed housing counseling or legal recourse. Undermining the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Our consolidated regulator in charge of monitoring systemic risk among the financial system by doubling the time it would take for them to designate risky nonbank companies for extra supervision. We should not be surprised about this bill today. It is consistent with everything that they have been doing in order to protect Wall Street, the biggest banks that are too big to fail. This again is consistent with everything they have been doing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would simply thank all of the Members who have worked on this bill, and I thank all of the support that I am getting for this amendment. I want to thank the chairman. Despite the fact he had a rather difficult time on committee today, he conducted himself rather well, and I enjoyed working with him. I am very thankful that he is here to give support on this amendment and the leadership he has given. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would remove the harmful provision in H.R. 3700 that would effectively raise rent for thousands of families with children who are living in HUD- assisted housing by limiting the amount they can deduct from their income for childcare expenses. These are parents, particularly single parents, who are already struggling to pay for the cost of child care in order to work or to go to school. I believe we should not be crippling their ability to juggle these responsibilities. We should be supporting them. I believe that my Republican colleagues share my concerns. We simply did not have the data that we needed at the markup to truly understand how this provision would affect these households. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Republicans have indicated that they will support this amendment, which will remove this harmful language and preserve the current law. This will ensure that families with children will not be burdened with a rent increase as a result of this bill. I would like to thank my colleagues across the aisle for working with me on this issue to find common ground. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman talked about having talked with the public housing authorities because we did, too, and they had no idea what your bill is. They didn't know anything about it, they didn't understand why it was being done, so we have a difference of opinion, I suppose, about what the public housing authorities are saying. I am saying that based on our inquiries, they did not support your legislation because they didn't understand it. They didn't know it exists. They didn't know what it was all about. I would, again, ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I basically made an appeal to my Republican colleagues to reject this amendment. I basically talked about the fact that we have gone a long way toward reconciling our differences and that we don't need to endanger the bill at all with an amendment like this. I am not sure exactly what the gentleman is attempting to do. We already have systems in existence by which those who wish to live in public housing have to verify their income. I don't know what is being attempted here. If the attempt is to try and go to financial institutions and say to them, is it true that this person only has $5 in their bank account or what have you? I am not sure that the housing authority would want to assume that additional responsibility and that additional cost, so I have to continue to oppose this amendment. Perhaps there is a better explanation than I have heard, but I have not heard a good explanation about why we should adopt it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have concerns that there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the new income verification system that is being proposed in this amendment, and I think it needs to be addressed. First, it appears that there would be a cost associated with this amendment. Housing authorities would have to spend some of their operating fund dollars to comply with the new requirements in this amendment, and that takes away from other important things that they must prioritize. It is important to note that the public housing operating fund and administrative fees are severely underfunded, so public housing authorities are already struggling to make ends meet. H.R. 3700 is intended to ease administrative burdens, but this amendment seems to be increasing burdens without any additional funding. In other words, it is an unfunded mandate. Secondly, it is unclear whether all housing authorities have the electronic infrastructure in place to securely maintain and protect residents' personal financial data, which could include bank account information, in a manner that is inconsistent with what current financial regulators have. If housing authorities need to upgrade their systems, that would also cost money that is not provided for in this amendment. Third, it is not clear how this amendment would work for residents who are unbanked. This amendment virtually ignores millions of Americans that are unbanked. Fourth, this amendment seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't exist because I have not seen any evidence that residents are currently not providing accurate information when applying for housing assistance. Lastly, H.R. 3700 already includes a provision to address over-income households in public housing to help ensure that taxpayers are not subsidizing these households. For every piece of legislation that we pass, it should be carefully considered, which is why we should not adopt this hasty amendment that has not been thoroughly studied by congressional staff or our housing groups, the administration, and carefully negotiated by both parties. Mr. Chairman and Members, let me just say this: We have a good bill here. We have gone a long way in dealing with whatever concerns either side may have. We have a compromise piece of legislation. We have a consensus piece of legislation. Let's not mess it up. We don't need this amendment. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just take these last few minutes that I have to say to those people who live in public housing that this is an important support effort of government to provide public housing for those who cannot afford market-rate housing. I have represented over the years many public housing projects in California. While I do not represent them all anymore, I still pay attention to public housing because I understand and know how very important it is to the lives of families and to the children who depend on having safe housing and affordable housing for them. I would simply like to say that oftentimes people who live in public housing have been demonized. There are folks who think, oh, they could do better if they wanted to. There are people who say that they don't want to remove themselves from public housing. I would like to have people know that many of the folks that I have known who live in public housing work every day for minimum wages. Many of them are trying very hard to be independent. Many of them would like to have job training. Many of them would like to have more support for childcare efforts. Many of them are working to get their GEDs. Many of them have returned to school. For the people who live in public housing, they don't need to feel that somehow they are getting something they don't deserve. I am proud of this government, and I am proud of this country that will provide a safety net for the least of these and safe public housing to those who cannot afford market-rate housing. I want our Congress to continue to see how we can do a better job even of providing safe and secure housing for those who cannot afford it. I want us to be able to provide additional support to those who live in public housing, for those who are saying to us: Help me with job training. Help me to ensure that my children can get the kind of support living in public housing that will give them access to a good education. Help us to have better health care so we can be better able to go out and take jobs to support our families. Help us to aspire to move upward and out, even. Help us to understand what is available to us out there. When we seek out help for our problems, don't look at us as if we are people who are not investing in ourselves, who are not relying on our own abilities. Simply see us as Americans who would like to do better. See us as Americans who unfortunately find ourselves in situations where we can't do better for now, but we are looking for the opportunity to do better and to have more and to enjoy everything that this country has to offer. So as we support this legislation today--and I support it--I am optimistic about the fact that this is going to make a lot of lives better, but I am also optimistic that this is really a beginning for how we can begin to not only give support, but involve tenants in how they can help to make decisions about the units that they are living in and how they can serve on the boards that oversee them, how they can be a part of government, helping us to understand how we can do a better job with the authority that they have given us. So I am very proud. I am very pleased. I thank Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Luetkemeyer. I thank Mr. Cleaver for telling his story about public housing. I want him to know that there are any number of Members in the Congress of the United States who have lived in public housing or their families, such as my family has lived in public housing. I want him to know I have watched public housing that has been very helpful. I have watched public housing that has provided safe, decent, and secure opportunities for the people who live there. But I have also watched public housing when it didn't work. The Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Missouri, was an example of what didn't work. I was in that city when it was torn down. The space that it occupied is still vacant in that city. It should be a space where we had additional public housing that would support the families who so desperately need it. So I don't take this bill lightly. I don't think about this as just another piece of legislation that we happen to get passed here in Congress, even with bipartisan support. I think of this as an important step and a statement, a statement that says both sides of the aisle understand housing, both sides of the aisle would like to continue to do the best job that they can do to provide safe and secure housing, and that we are not going to stand by and watch homelessness continue to grow. It was mentioned several times throughout this debate--maybe here today and when we were in committee--that, in Los Angeles County, homelessness has increased by 20 percent. People are sleeping on the sidewalks all the way up to city hall. We cannot abide that. We cannot stand by and watch that happen. While I am pointing to Los Angeles County, there are many areas all across this Nation where homelessness is shameful and unconscionable. I am very pleased and proud that we are sending a signal here today that we won't stand for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to close by again thanking my colleagues, Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Luetkemeyer, for their leadership in putting together a bipartisan affordable housing bill that addresses so many complicated issues in a responsible way and brings together so many different stakeholders in support of this bill. There is a very long list of organizations that support this bill that includes tenant advocacy groups, public housing authority industry groups, real estate industry groups, rural housing groups, as well as community development organizations. To name just a few, the supporters of this bill include the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the National Housing Trust, CSH, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the National Association of Realtors, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Enterprise Community Partners, and many more. The enthusiastic support from such a broad and diverse coalition of organizations is indicative of the hard-fought compromises that are included in this bill. In fact, I do not know of a single organization that is opposing this bill. H.R. 3700 is made up of commonsense reforms that will make much- needed improvements to our housing programs to make them work better for both public housing agencies and the tenants they serve. If this bill is enacted into law, it will make the first major reforms to HUD's primary rental assistance programs since 1998, and that is an achievement that we can all be proud of. So there is a lot at stake here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill contains several provisions which I wholeheartedly support and would like to see passed into law. For example, this bill includes a few provisions that were taken straight from bills that I have authored, including the text of my Project-Based Voucher Improvement Act of 2015, which would increase the flexibility for public housing authorities to develop new units of housing to serve vulnerable populations, including those who are homeless in this country. It would also help to create housing opportunities in areas where vouchers are difficult to use. I introduced the Project-Based Voucher Improvement Act to address the severe lack of affordable housing, which is contributing to the epidemic of homelessness across the country. The Section 8 project- based voucher program is a valuable tool to help preserve and create more affordable housing, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable populations. Essentially, it helps housing providers leverage outside financing in order to create and maintain affordable housing in their communities. My bill would help us maximize the effectiveness of this critical program by facilitating the ability of PHAs to enter into agreements with private and nonprofit owners and to partner with social service agencies to provide supportive housing. This will, ultimately, help provide stable housing for our most vulnerable populations. Gaining access to affordable housing is becoming harder and harder for far too many families. We are in the midst of a homeless crisis in my district and in many districts around the country, and we need more affordable housing to help get vulnerable populations off the streets. By making this Section 8 project-based voucher program easier to use, we could help to overcome this challenge. I hope that the information that has been shared by some of my colleagues has not been lost. I certainly hope that we all heard what Congresswoman Barbara Lee said about residents who are paying 70 percent of their income for housing, and it has become commonplace around this country for our citizens to be paying 50 percent of their income for housing. This is totally unacceptable. I am very pleased that we are focusing on housing. I am very pleased as there are certain aspects of this bill that, I think, will be very beneficial to our residents and to our constituents throughout the country. I am hopeful that we will continue on this track and that this won't be the last housing effort that we make that comes out of the Financial Services Committee. I am very pleased to be a part of it. I am proud of all of the work that has gone into this legislation. I am very pleased that we were able to work out any differences that we may have had. I am very proud of Mr. Cleaver and of Mr. Luetkemeyer, as they are two gentlemen from Missouri, for getting together to do this bill. It might have helped a little bit that I am from Missouri also. I think this bill is something we can all be proud of. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss H.R. 3700, but I would like to start by saying how pleased I am that we are focusing on housing. This is the first major housing bill that the Financial Services Committee has considered in the past several Congresses, and I hope that we can spend a lot more time focusing on the dire housing needs of low-income families in America as we move forward. Today, only one in four households in this country who are eligible to receive housing assistance actually receive it, and there is a severe deficit of over 7 million rental units that are both affordable and available to extremely low-income Americans. Furthermore, according to HUD's most recent point-in-time count, there are nearly 600,000 Americans who are homeless in this country--a staggering number I find simply unconscionable. These statistics demonstrate that we must come together to make reforms to Federal housing programs, but also to commit new resources to tackle the extreme lack of affordable housing in this country. I spend a lot of time visiting and talking with housing and homeless services providers. Recently, I visited the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles and N Street Village here in D.C. These homeless service providers are helping women and families get off the streets and into safe, decent, affordable, and supportive housing. Organizations such as these are not just applying compassion, they are applying evidence- based approaches to addressing homelessness in the most effective ways. H.R. 3700 is a step in the right direction because it directly responds to concerns that I have heard over and over again from these housing and homeless service providers about how Federal housing programs can better support their efforts. This bill would make several incremental changes across a number of Federal housing programs that will allow us to better serve low-income families in need of housing assistance while also relieving certain administrative burdens. These changes would affect public housing, section 8 Tenant and Project-Based Rental Assistance, the Federal Housing Administration, the Rural Housing Service, and HUD's homelessness programs, among others. Many of the provisions are commonsense reforms that are long overdue. For example, this bill includes the text of my bill, the Project-Based Voucher Improvement Act of 2015, which would increase flexibility for public housing authorities to develop new units of housing to serve vulnerable populations, including those who are homeless in this country. It would also help to create housing opportunities in areas where vouchers are difficult to use. Several national and local tenant advocacy organizations and affordable housing industry groups have expressed support for my bill. In addition, a number of other provisions in H.R. 3700 were included in previous section 8 reform bills that I have introduced. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues have expressed their support for these provisions that I have long advocated. At the markup of this bill, I raised a serious concern that I had with one of the provisions in H.R. 3700 because it would effectively raise rents for low-income families with children who are living in certain HUD-assisted housing. I voted against the bill in committee. Although I voted against the bill at the committee markup for this reason, I am very pleased to say that I have worked, and my staff has worked, with my Republican colleagues so that we could find some common ground, and they have indicated that they will support my amendment that I have offered to address this issue. I am encouraged that my Republican colleagues shared in my concerns and that we were able to reach a meaningful compromise on this issue. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am now urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3700. It is high time we came together to pass a bipartisan housing bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver). He is the leading Democratic sponsor of this bill, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and someone who has been focused on dealing with poverty.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I have serious concerns about providing a permanent exemption for the listed entities from existing requirements that each public housing authority must have a resident commissioner serve on the governing board. In 1998, Congress passed this requirement into law in recognition of the need for the perspective and participation of tenants in the governance of public housing authorities. To this day, this requirement helps to ensure that residents are included in board-level decisionmaking. However, in appropriations bills over the last decade, four entities have received an exemption from this requirement so long as they maintain a separate advisory board with at least six residents of public or assisted housing. The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles is one of the four entities that received this exemption. However, last year I learned that HACOLA was not in compliance with the part of the exemption that requires that they maintain an advisory board of at least six residents, and this noncompliance had been going on for many years. HACOLA's noncompliance resulted in a lack of meaningful engagement by residents on important policy issues affecting programs that HACOLA administers. I successfully offered an amendment in the funding year 2016 housing funding bill to strike HACOLA's exemption. While this amendment was ultimately not included in the final omnibus, it did put Congress, HUD, and the Housing Authority on notice that failure to comply with this important law is simply unacceptable. This demonstrates that we need to be extremely careful when providing exemptions for a requirement as important as this one. The exemption for HACOLA and others was intended to provide them with special accommodations while still ensuring meaningful tenant engagement. But HACOLA's behavior displayed blatant disregard for the law and the intent behind the law. That is why I do not believe that we should be making this exemption permanent. Instead, I think we should be thinking about ways to enhance compliance with the existing exemption requirements. For these reasons, of course I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman and Members, it is just inconceivable that we don't understand that, if you want to not only educate tenants, but want to involve tenants in decisionmaking and help them to understand how democracy works and help them to understand the rules of public housing and what can and cannot be done and why these rules are adopted--if we don't understand that, we don't understand anything. It is inconceivable to me that we would simply say that we do not want just one commissioner, one resident, to be a part of the governing board, and it is inconceivable to me that we don't understand that we allow for exemptions to say: Okay. If you don't want just one commissioner to serve on the board with you, we will allow you to have an advisory board of six residents that could involve themselves in the decisions that are made by the governing board. I talk about this importance because I think it is so important, as we engage and lift people out of poverty, that they understand the rules of the game. The only way you get to understand the rules of the game is if you get to play. You get to understand how decisions are made. You get to understand what the rules are and how government works. To exclude them does not make good sense to me. Now, I know why my own county would like to have this done. They would like to have this done because--guess what. We discovered that they were trying to sell off 241 units of Section 8-type housing at the same time that they were providing the museum with over $120 million, and they said they could not afford the upkeep of those units. They didn't like it that we went out and talked with the residents. I went out to the homes and I said: Did you know that these units are about to be sold? Do you know what is going to happen to you and why the county is giving up these units? No. They didn't know. They didn't have a clue because they didn't have proper notification. They didn't have one resident that served on the governing board. They didn't have an advisory committee, even though L.A. County had gotten an exemption. They refused to even comply with the exemption to simply have an advisory board. This is not right. This does not make good sense. I don't know why you would support something like this. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. My amendment would protect students, servicemembers, and veterans who are seeking monetary relief from fraudulent institutions of higher education by exempting them from the onerous requirements for class certification outlined in the bill. H.R. 1927 requires Federal courts to certify a class only when all class members demonstrate they have suffered the same type and scope of injury. This additional requirement would be unduly burdensome to students, servicemembers, and veterans who have been fraudulently misled by the for-profit college industry. For example, recently the Department of Education conducted a joint investigation with California Attorney General Kamala Harris. They concluded that for-profit college Corinthian Colleges misrepresented its job placement rates to prospective and enrolled students. Specifically, the investigation found that, among other abuses, a Corinthian accounting program reported a job placement rate of 92 percent of its graduates in accounting-related fields, but that, in reality, only 12 percent of the graduates of this program had secured jobs in accounting. For a separate business associate program, Corinthian reported a 95 percent job placement rate, but the Department of Education determined that, in reality, only 14 percent of the program's graduates had jobs in the relevant field. It is clear that, with job placement rate errors of 80 and 81 percent respectively, students enrolled in both programs were intentionally and fraudulently misled by Corinthian Colleges. Yet, under H.R. 1927, these defrauded students arguably would not be able to form a class to seek relief because they have been injured by a mere 1 percent degree of difference or because they were lied to about job placement rates in different careers. This is totally illogical and unfair, and it defeats the purpose of the class action. As the example demonstrates, particularly in the context of higher education, H.R. 1927 essentially makes class certification impossible to achieve and, thus, impractical to pursue. The inability to bring forth class actions will selectively shield for-profit colleges from accountability and will significantly reduce access to our court system for deserving students and veterans. We only need to look further at Corinthian Colleges to understand the harm that ensues when these schools are left unaccountable. For decades, Corinthian Colleges defrauded its students by inflating job placement rates, by engaging in unfair marketing practices and illegal debt collection tactics, and by requiring students to take out private loans at high interest rates. According to the California attorney general, it likewise unlawfully used military seals in its advertising materials to lure an increasing number of our active servicemen and veterans. Worse yet, by including bans on class actions as a prerequisite to enrollment, Corinthian Colleges protected itself from liability while engaging in these awful predatory tactics. As a result of its decades of predatory conduct, Corinthian Colleges was finally forced to close its doors in April 2015, leaving thousands of students with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, with worthless degrees, and with no job opportunities to show for their time and hard work. Hundreds of veterans forfeited their GI benefits, which were earned on the battlefield in service to our country. One veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan told Politico that the months he had spent studying auto mechanics at a Corinthian school was wasted time because of the poor equipment and the training he received. In October, a Federal judge ruled that Corinthian Colleges was operating a predatory lending scheme and ordered the school to pay back $531 million in damages to all students who attended the network of colleges before it closed its doors. Yet, in reality, because the school has filed for bankruptcy, executives will walk away with millions while students and veterans will never see any of the money owed to them. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be expected to pick up the tab for this and any other future Corinthian judgments. The law already favors schools like Corinthian and other big corporations over classes of harmed consumers--as evidenced by the fact that students were unable to join together and prevail in a class action during Corinthian's prior decades of misconduct, and prior to its bankruptcy and collapse. Corinthian should have been forced to repay these students out of their own profits, and our service members and veterans should have had their G.I. benefits returned so those funds could be used at a competitive, high-achieving institution. Yet, today, we are considering advancing H.R. 1927, which will serve as an additional barrier to ensuring justice for these students, service members and veterans. My amendment would eliminate the hurdle that H.R. 1927 imposes on defrauded students, which would help ensure that the institutions of higher education would be on the hook for their fraud and unfair practices, and ensure that other for-profit institutions would be held accountable in the future. I would ask for support for my amendment. I am sure that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would not want to go down in history as preventing these kinds of acts from being dealt with. I yield back the balance of my time.