Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), who has been an absolute leader on this issue.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will be opposing all amendments to this portion of the highway bill. Without a doubt, these amendments reflect the latest in a string of tactics by opponents of the Export-Import Bank to delay and block any reauthorization of the Bank from moving forward. This amendment and other anti-Ex-Im amendments we will soon consider cannot reasonably be viewed as a constructive effort. As we know well, small businesses unquestionably are central to the health of our economy. Fortunately, before extremists, ones on the opposite side of the aisle, shut down the Ex-Im Bank. Many small businesses were already directly supported by the programs offered by the Export-Import Bank. In fact, in fiscal year 2014, out of over 3,700 authorizations, more than 3,300, or nearly 90 percent, directly served U.S. small businesses. Of the remaining 10 percent, many of these authorizations served companies that support vast U.S. supply chains, including in my district. The effort to use small businesses as a pawn in the fight to kill the Ex-Im Bank should be rejected. This amendment must be rejected. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) who serves on the Financial Services Committee and who has worked tirelessly for this reauthorization.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, this amendment combines 15 Financial Services bills that have had broad bipartisan support and passed through the committee and on the House floor. These bills address important issues that range from helping to preserve affordable rental housing to providing regulatory relief to small banks and reporting companies, to affording start-ups, emerging growth companies and community financial institutions with greater flexibility to raise capital. Let me be clear. I have supported these bills in committee and on the floor. But, Madam Chair and Members, this Congress is made up of two Houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just as we were given the opportunity to debate and amend these bills, taking into account concerns from our constituents and interested stakeholders, the Senate should also be given the opportunity. I am also concerned with the other amendments and their potential negative effect on this set of bills. For example, Representative Young has an amendment that would require each rulemaking in the highway bill, as amended, to include a list of information upon which it is based, including data, scientific and economic studies, and cost- benefit analysis, and identify how the public can access such information online. What this means is that the Securities and Exchange Commission, in conducting its rulemaking under Chairman Hensarling's amendment, would face this additional administrative hurdle, including the innocent- sounding cost-benefit analysis. However, cost-benefit analysis is a tool that has been used by the industry and the opposite side of the aisle both in agencies and in the courts and in Congress to delay, weaken, or kill necessary reforms. Such analysis encourages second-guessing, favors easily quantifiable costs over less tangible benefits, and is extremely resource intensive. That is why my Democratic colleagues and I have opposed its application to the SEC, an agency that already performs economic analysis for its rulemaking and has enough on its plate with its additional responsibility under the JOBS Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Requiring the SEC to conduct an onerous cost-benefit analysis is even more concerning with the Republicans' refusal to adequately fund the agency. So the meager existing funds would have to be diverted from other important SEC functions, like enforcement and investigations. Cost-benefit analysis in Representative Young's amendment is also opposed by consumer advocates like the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. While, again, I support the 15 Financial Services bills in this amendment, I oppose this process of pushing them through the House attached to the highway bill. Madam Chair and Members, again, this is about process. I do believe that the Senate should have the ability to debate these bills. Coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we are tasked with the responsibility to take a very complicated subject matter, Financial Services matters, and to make sure that we give every Member an opportunity to have input, to have credible debates. I just believe that the Senate should have that opportunity. So while we have supported these bills--and Mr. Hensarling is absolutely correct--we had an opportunity to do that because we understood them very well. We debated them. We had an opportunity to have input to ask questions, to do everything that you need to do to be well informed about legislation that you are either supporting or opposing. Again, this is about process. I just simply believe that the Senate should have the right to debate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I would like to draw to your attention that Mr. Neugebauer's original amendment would have paused for 1 year and studied it. He changed it to strip the surplus forever and keep the dividend. My Republican colleagues had every opportunity to ask Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen about this amendment or, for that matter, her thoughts on what cutting the big bank dividend payments would be but did not. Instead, they peppered her for 3 hours with sundry other questions, failing to ask about one proposal, then considered late in the day to eliminate a 100-year-old monetary policy tool. Madam Chair, yesterday my Republican colleagues sought to hamstring the Federal Reserve. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Neugebauer amendment represents a poorly designed attempt to cover the cost of the highway bill. My colleague from Texas is concerned that the Senate's underlying provisions would cut the largest banks' guaranteed 6 percent dividend payments from the Federal Reserve as well as extend a 10 basis point fee on new mortgages, although not until 2021. In place of those provisions, my colleague would eliminate the Federal Reserve surplus account without even considering whether it could harm monetary policy or our economic security in the decades ahead. I previously expressed concern about using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a piggy bank to pay for unrelated government spending. Instead, Republicans should finally take up housing finance reform. Despite controlling this House for almost 5 years and the Senate for nearly 2, Republicans have entirely failed to reform the housing markets, despite claiming that the mortgage giants caused the crisis. Regarding the other Senate provision, I am not sure why the largest banks should be entitled to a permanent dividend payment of 6 percent a year. How many of my colleagues or their constituents have a safe investment that pays this well? In fact, most of my constituents are lucky to earn a penny a month on their bank account. Yet, when the Senate first proposed to cut these bank dividends, House Republicans urged that Congress first study what would be the effect before changing the law. The Federal Reserve surplus account, which Mr. Neugebauer proposes to eliminate permanently to protect the bank dividends, has promoted global confidence in U.S. monetary policy for more than 100 years. Federal Reserve officials explained to the GAO that maintaining capital, including the surplus account, provides an assurance of a central bank's strength and stability to investors and foreign holders of U.S. currency. That is why central banks around the world--including the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the German Central Bank--all make use of surplus accounts. Nevertheless, my Republican colleagues are willing to cut this monetary policy tool without knowing what the long-term effect would be. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve took unprecedented action to prevent economic collapse by purchasing trillions of dollars of assets. During the countless hearings with Federal Reserve chairs Bernanke and Yellen, my colleagues suggested that the Federal Reserve is leveraged more than Lehman Brothers, pointing out that the Fed surplus is inadequate to protect losses to the taxpayer. But with this amendment, they would eliminate for all time all Fed surplus which, based on Republican logic, would be infinite leverage. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), one of our champions on the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), which, with all due respect, is a solution in search of a problem that, if adopted, will only serve to undermine the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. The fact is the Ex-Im Bank already has a process in place for providing public notice and comment under which any member of the public, including companies who believe they may have been harmed, may submit comments which the board reviews prior to approving any transaction. Lengthening this approval process by an additional 4 months, as the gentleman's amendment would do, would only serve to hurt our exporters by preventing them from competing in time-sensitive deals. Our U.S. exporters need and deserve every competitive edge they can get. I urge my Members to reject this unnecessary and burdensome amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is what our accountant friend, Mr. Sherman, called fairytale value accounting. But further than that, President George W. Bush calls this fuzzy math. We have heard everything this evening. We have had every attempt to try to kill the Export-Import Bank, and now we are into this fuzzy, fairytale math that is being presented by my friend. I urge my friends to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman doesn't realize is we are all trying to get a fair chance for our constituents, the small businesses and the jobs. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a real champion and a leader to reauthorize the Bank.