Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep making the argument about the grace period. That should not even be discussed here because we have agreed, Mr. Cordray from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has agreed and everybody has agreed, that there should have been a grace period. That is not what my amendment was about that they would not allow me to take up on the floor. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is about consumer protection. They know it, and they are trying to keep people misled by coming in here with their props and saying that this bill is 1,800 pages when, in fact, it is not. So I want everybody to be clear that this is not about the grace period, and this is not about not giving the industry an opportunity to get its act together. Really, the debate should be about whether or not they protect consumers, and they don't. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important for us all to really understand what is taking place here today. First of all, I want to warn against misleading information. When we keep hearing that those stack of papers represent the bill--that the bill is 1,800 pages long--that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the committee knows that 171 pages are simply sample model forms to say to the banks: These are the kind of forms that you need, and you can take these samples and use them: 63 pages are description of the rationale behind the rule, why do we have this rule; 15 pages are summarizing the rulemaking process; 308 pages with section-by-section analysis. So that is not the bill, those pages that you see, the props that are being used. If we go to the beginning of this, you have to understand that it was Dodd-Frank that decided they wanted to make this process more easily understood by the consumers. Out of the Dodd-Frank legislation, they are the ones that combined both TILA and RESPA into this integrated disclosure form to make it simpler. So despite the fact that the banks and the industry have-- particularly the big banks--thousands of employees, millions of dollars, doing big trades, et cetera, et cetera, they said: We really can't get our act together in the length of time that is given us with this rule. So for some of us who thought, well, you know, they are very well- staffed, they have a lot of money, they could really do this, but we will take them at their word. And not only that, some of us on the Democratic side said we would take them at their word, Mr. Cordray led the effort in saying, all right, there should be a grace period. I don't care what my chairman said. If Mr. Cordray did not say it in the exact words the way that he wanted him to say it, that is just too bad; but the fact of the matter is he did say it, that he would support a grace period, and that is what we have all done. So given that he has said that, given that we have support for it on the Democratic side and the Republican side, really, there is no need for the bill. This is just taking up precious time and energy for something that is not needed. I think I know why there is such a fight for this legislation. Because it includes in it something that would protect the lenders even when they make a big mistake. We talk about good faith, but I want to tell you what is included in this Integrated Disclosure. People are talking about real issues here. Will the loan amount be the same that the consumer has agreed upon? Will the interest rate be the same? Or will somehow there be a little mistake; instead of 3.8 in interest rates, it is going to end up 4.2 or 4.3? If that happens, what can the consumer do if you don't give them the right to go into court? Basically, they can do nothing, and the lender can say ``too bad about that.'' We cannot treat consumers that way. We have to give them the right to have their day in court. And even with the burden being on the consumer to have to prove that the lender acted in good faith, the consumer needs to have the right to go and make the case. And so my amendment that was not allowed in the Rules Committee and we did not get a chance to come to the floor and debate it because they closed down the rule simply means that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle said: We don't care what you are saying about protecting the consumers. We know that there could be some mistakes. However, we say, if those mistakes are made, it was in good faith. They didn't really mean to do it and, no, the consumer doesn't have a right to go into the court and make the case. That is not right. It should not happen. As our leader has said, we have gone through a period of time where this country almost had a depression. We certainly did have a recession because the big banks and too many of the banks and financial institutions in this country came up with all of these exotic products. People were misled. They signed on the dotted line for mortgages that many of them could not afford. These mortgages reset, and people ended up paying higher interest rates 6 months or a year after they signed on the dotted line. They didn't know. They didn't understand. So you can say that the banks who treated the consumers this way were acting in good faith and they didn't intend to do it, but we know enough now that we cannot depend on representations of ``I didn't mean it.'' If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have done it. And if you did it, you need to be able to be dealt with in a court of law. So here we are with this legislation. And if you had not put that part in the legislation, there would not even have to be a discussion. You are absolutely right; it could have been on suspension or there could not have been a bill at all. But, no, the concern about the consumer is not what appears to be foremost in the minds of those who would dismiss their opportunity to go to court. We should not treat our consumers that way. We should have learned our lesson. We should have learned our lesson. Folks who are buying a home maybe for the first time and this is the biggest decision and this is the biggest credit action that they are going to make in their lifetime, they need to have some assurances that they are being treated right. Why do you think we have all of these disclosure laws? Before these disclosure laws were developed, people were misled. They ended up with balloon payments, prepayment penalties, on and on and on. We are saying, yes, let's have a grace period; let's allow the banks to use this time to get their house in order. They can train their staff. They can get their papers together. We agree to all of that. That is not an issue, and we say it over and over again because we don't want anybody to be misled that somehow we are standing in the way of the great spirit. We are not doing that. We agree to that. What we are standing in the way of is abuse of our consumers. We created this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because our consumers did not have the protection that they needed. Our regulators didn't pay attention to consumers. They were supposed to be there, not only to deal with the possible risks in the system, et cetera, and the consumers, but nobody was looking out for the consumers. So this is the centerpiece of Dodd-Frank reforms, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The centerpiece of Dodd-Frank is to protect consumers and not allow them to be tricked, not allow them to be misled, not allow them to be prevented from going to court. You can describe it any way that you want to describe it, but the fact of the matter is you are either with the consumers or you are not. We on this side of the aisle, for the most part, are telling you over and over again that we are with the great spirit. We are not with your actions and that part of the bill that will not allow our consumers to be protected. And you can protest all you want. You cannot tell me if Ms. Jones, in signing on the dotted line, ends up with a higher interest rate than she thought she was getting and if she does not have the right to go into court, what happens. Who is going to protect her if she does not have the right to go into court and make the case and show that this is not simply an error of a comma or a period? This is an action that does not show good faith. This is an action that will cause me to pay hundreds of more dollars for my loan that I had not anticipated. Consumers should not be treated that way. Consumers should be protected in every possible way that we can because, in the final analysis, that is why they send us to Congress, to be able to be their voice, to speak for them. We on this side of the aisle will continue to do that in spite of the tricks of the trade that are being employed by others. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished leader.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes for an opening statement. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3192, a proposal that I believe erodes consumers' ability to have their day in court and that undermines efforts to comply with the CFPB's new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure act. When I say TILA and RESPA, I am talking about the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Mr. Speaker, I stand in full support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's decision to engage in restrained enforcement of the new disclosure rules until 2016, and I support the FFIEC's recent announcement that prudential regulators' supervision of financial institutions' compliance with the new rules will recognize the scope and scale of the changes necessary for financial institutions and other affected entities to effectively comply. Simply speaking, when the business community and Democrats and Republicans all basically said, ``We believe that these integrated rules are complicated. It is going to take industry time to get up to speed,'' they have got to change their paper. They have got to train their employees, et cetera, et cetera. We all agree that there should be a grace period. So, with that, my support for a temporary period of restrained administrative enforcement and supervision reflects the recognition of the massive undertaking that lenders and other settlement providers have undergone in preparation for the new disclosure rules. Now, given the administrative liability that lenders would face under both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act, I fully understand the real concerns that affected entities have, given the scale and scope of the changes called for under the new disclosure rules. Mr. Speaker, industry requests to date that the Bureau and other Federal regulators take a more thoughtful approach with respect to their enforcement and supervision is reasonable. My support for the actions taken to date by regulators to consider good faith compliance efforts by lenders and other entities affected by the new disclosure rules does not, however, extend to suspending, even temporarily, one of the more important consumer protections available to the Truth in Lending Act, which is a consumer's right to bring an action protecting themselves in the event that a lender makes an inaccurate, untimely, misleading disclosure. Basically, what we are talking about now is who is going to protect the consumer in all of this. We are saying that there is a need to protect consumers. Those who oppose the amendment that I tried to bring to the floor to do just that are saying they are not on the side of the consumer. While the good faith provision in H.R. 3192 does allow consumers to bring actions in response to egregious violations of the Truth in Lending Act, consumers can still rely on inaccurate or misleading disclosure errors that are made in good faith. Under current law, borrowers can bring an action where a disclosure is inaccurate or misleading, even if the error is made in good faith, and the burden under current law is on the lender to prove that their disclosure is consistent with the Truth in Lending Act. Now we have a change. In contrast, under H.R. 3192, this legislation, the burden is placed on the consumer to demonstrate from the onset of an action that the error was not made in good faith, a bar that is virtually impossible for most consumers to overcome. That is a drastic departure from current law. The private right of action under the Truth in Lending Act serves two important purposes: First, it allows consumers to protect themselves from inaccurate, untimely, or misleading mortgage disclosures. Second, through the act's provision of statutory and class-action damages, as well as attorneys' fees and court costs, TILA also provides clear incentives for lenders to ensure that the disclosures they provide are timely and accurate. I just want to take a look at what the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure would require. Let us take a look at what we are talking about. In this document, they identify the amounts for the loan, the interest rates, the monthly principal and interest, whether or not there are prepayment penalties, whether or not there is a balloon payment, on and on and on. It gets down to exactly what is being disclosed to the consumer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee, for the defense that he is putting up relative to my amendment. Yes, I went to the Rules Committee, and, yes, I attempted to have an amendment that would protect our consumers. So it is clear that the opposite side of the aisle did not want the public to know about this amendment. Why didn't they want this amendment debated? It is because they know that our consumers need to have the kind of protection that would allow them to go into court and raise questions about whether or not they are being defrauded, they are being misled, they are not being told the truth when they close on these mortgage deals. Because the Rules Committee decided that we could not have a debate on my amendment, we have to take every opportunity to try to unveil why they are keeping this amendment down, why they don't want to debate it. As a matter of fact, I am so surprised that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle tried to make this sound as if the Democrats didn't want a grace period, that we didn't want a hold harmless period. That is absolutely not true. We agreed with Mr. Cordray, who heads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that there should be a grace period. We understood when the industry talked about the fact that they had a lot of work to do to make sure that they got the right forms, that they trained their people, that they came in compliance with the new rules that were created under Dodd-Frank. So we agreed. Okay, Mr. Cordray said, I will not implement enforcement. I understand what you are saying. And Democrats agreed. We will set a grace period. It is okay. You keep trying to debate this bill about the grace period. That is not an issue. That is not an issue at all. We agree to the grace period. Go, do your work; get your papers all worked out; get your staff all trained. But that is not what this issue is about. This issue is about, where do you stand with consumers? Are you willing to say to consumers that if, in fact, you believe that you have been harmed in this closing, that all of a sudden the estimated costs are highly different, they are so different from what the final costs are--if you want to say to the consumer you don't have a right to go into court and raise that question, then you are against the consumers. The consumers should have a right to have their day in court despite the grace period. The grace period should not be a period where you simply are getting your papers in order and you are training your staff. It should be a period where you still have a guarantee that you are not going to be tricked at closing time, that you are not going to be misled, that you are not going to be undermined in any way. If you want this to be a grace period where folks can say, ``Ah, I have an opportunity now,'' the lender can say, ``I have an opportunity to get a little more money out of this deal,'' and then you would say if they misled the consumer that the consumer does not have a right at all to raise a question about it, I don't think so. So we on this side of the aisle, we stand with consumers. When consumers decide to purchase a home, it is the biggest purchase of most people's lives, and they should be afforded the broadest recourse available under the law. Many errors can occur in this complicated process, some made in good faith, some that are not. For example, a lender might fail to properly disclose key loan terms, such as annual interest rates, finance charges, and other critical information associated with purchasing a home. If a borrower feels that they have been harmed, they should have an opportunity to have their day in court without limitation. I fully support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's announcement that it would engage in restrained enforcement actions against lenders under their new mortgage disclosure rules. The Bureau made similar assurances in response to the mortgage underwriting and servicing rules that went into effect last year. And I fully expect the Bureau to do the same with these new disclosure rules that they have always done, to be responsive to Congress, industry, and other relevant stakeholders, and to make thoughtful decisions on the best way to proceed in protecting consumers. I have no reason to believe that they will not be as thoughtful in their approach to the new mortgage disclosures as they were with the mortgage underwriting and servicing rules.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. While I also support the provisions of H.R. 3192 that are consistent with the CFPB's action to date, my support ends when the vital consumer protections, like the private right of action afforded to consumers under the Truth in Lending Act, are weakened or, worse, completely eliminated. Under current law, consumers that feel that a lender provided an inaccurate or misleading mortgage disclosure can file suit under the Truth in Lending Act, and lenders are forced to prove that the disclosures they provided were consistent with the act. The burden of proof is properly placed with the lenders, as they have the resources to prove their good faith intent, and consumers often have limited information at the time they file suit. H.R. 3192, however, would shield the lenders from liability if an error was committed in good faith even if a consumer relied on this information to their detriment. The act or the effect of the good faith provision is that it requires that consumers prove from the onset of an action filed against a lender that an error was not made in good faith, a burden of proof that a borrower simply lacks the means to make. As a result, the good faith requirement in H.R. 3192 operates as yet another hurdle for consumers and is a harmful departure from current law. So I offered the amendment. And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is correct. Why couldn't we have a debate on it? It is a very simple amendment. This would help provide clarity to the marketplace while also protecting consumers. The amendment would simply restore a consumer's existing rights under TILA to bring an action during the temporary safe harbor period established by H.R. 3192 even if the action was filed in response to an error made by a lender in good faith. Let me just say, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers who expect you to protect them? We have gone through a crisis in this country. We had a subprime meltdown. We discovered that consumers had been tricked. People buying homes had been misled. We discovered that they had loans that, well, they didn't even understand. We don't want to go back there. We want to protect consumers, and we have a right to do that. This amendment would have helped clarify that. You did not afford us that.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Edna and John W. Mosley, on the occasion of the grand opening of the school named in their honor in Aurora, Colorado. Both Edna and John Mosley were trailblazers and public servants. Lieutenant Colonel John Mosley graduated from Colorado State A&M College, where he participated in the Civilian Pilot Training Program during his senior year. In 1943, he completed the program, but was still denied the right to serve his country as a pilot due to his race. But John was not discouraged. John and his family wrote letters to Congress and even the White House to petition for placement in the Tuskegee Airmen Pilot program, and due to his persistence and determination, he was finally accepted as a Tuskegee Airman. His accomplished military career spanned World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. After retiring from the Air Force, John served our country at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in Washington, D.C., where one of his most important responsibilities was overseeing the newly formed Head Start Program in 1970. John received numerous awards, among them, the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2007 for his service as a Tuskegee Airman. Edna Mosley was a lifetime member of the NAACP, and worked to establish the organization's chapter in Denver. She served 12 years on the Aurora city council, becoming the first African American elected to the council in 1991. On the council, she championed important and pressing issues--civil rights, gender equality, veteran's interests, affordable housing, and educational opportunity. Mr. Speaker, Edna and John Mosley embody what truly makes our country and communities great--a selfless commitment to our neighbors, and fighting for the common good. I extend my best wishes for the academic success of the future graduates of the school, and their commitment to carrying forward the amazing legacy of Edna and John Mosley.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the previous question so that this House may finally get on with the important work of supporting American jobs by reauthorizing the charter of the Export-Import Bank. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle claim that they support business. They claim they support small business. They claim that this is something that is not paid enough attention to. Yet when we have the opportunity to support the Ex-Im Bank, what do they do? They turn it into a political question because they want to use it to divide. Let me tell you some facts about the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im Bank supported $27.4 billion of U.S. exports at no cost to American taxpayers; 164,000 American jobs were supported. Nearly 90 percent of Ex-Im Bank transactions directly supported small businesses. There was a $675 million surplus generated for American taxpayers in funding year 2014 alone. Ex-Im Bank's mission is American jobs. By financing the export of American goods and services, Ex-Im Bank has supported $1.3 million private sector, American jobs since 2009, supporting, again, 164,000 jobs in funding year 2014 alone. So, Mr. Speaker and Members, every day that this Republican-led House refuses to act is another day that American workers suffer the consequences. It has been 3 months now since Republicans shut down our Nation's export credit agency, a vital financing tool that enables U.S. companies both large and small to compete for sales in the global marketplace, and businesses and their workers are feeling the pain. The stories that we have received from across the Nation make the unfortunate consequences of the House Republicans' shutdown of the Ex- Im Bank distressingly clear. In describing the impact of the Ex-Im shutdown, the chief financial officer of Chief Industries, Incorporated, a Nebraska company that sells grain bins and elevators, said: ``We've lost business. That's the easiest way to put it. We can't get that business back.'' In my home State of California, the president of Combustion Associates, Incorporated, a power plant manufacturer, said that the shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank has put her small, woman- and minority-owned company at a ``real disadvantage,'' saying that, as a result of fierce competition from Chinese and European firms: ``If we don't get Ex-Im back soon, there's a very good chance we will lose three pending contracts to one of our competitors.'' In describing the devastating consequence of losing the support of the Ex-Im Bank, the owner of U.S. International Trading Corporation, based in Nevada, said that the ideologically charged debate surrounding the reauthorization ``is like being stabbed in the back by people who should be defending you.'' Steve Wilburn, a long-time Republican and former marine, who owns a renewable fuels company in Arizona that lost a major Philippines green energy project due to the uncertainty over Ex-Im's future, recently remarked: ``I never thought the day would come when the Republican Party would somehow view a small business like mine as crony capitalism.'' While these small businesses and many like them are unable to successfully compete internationally without the support of the Ex-Im Bank, some of our Nation's largest manufacturers are losing contracts as well, with significant negative downstream consequences for the small business suppliers that make up their vast U.S. supply chains. Making matters worse, in recent weeks, large companies, including GE and Boeing, have announced that the lack of export credit financing from the Ex-Im Bank has forced those companies to move some of their manufacturing operations abroad, where export credit financing is readily available. Mr. Speaker, we should be ashamed of this. We should be doing everything we can to grow jobs in this country and give U.S. businesses the tools they need to succeed. I have said it before and will say it again, a majority of this House supports reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank; and if we don't give Members the opportunity to vote up or down on reopening the Bank's doors today, the self-inflicted shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank will continue to hurt workers and our economy. It is time to recognize the realities of the extremely competitive international marketplace that businesses must compete in.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I don't know what they are afraid of. They like shutting things down. You are going to shut down something in this country that is going to cause us to lose jobs.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. They have absolutely stood in the way of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. And where does that place this country? It places us in a position where we cannot compete with other countries who fully support the export opportunity. So I would ask my colleagues to please vote on this bill at this time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time to speak on this important issue. I rise today in opposition to the previous question in order to give House Members an opportunity to vote on reauthorizing the charter of the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Speaker, it is well past time to end the ideologically driven shutdown of the Export-Import Bank that has prohibited this critical agency from continuing to support United States businesses and their workers. For almost 2 years, Democrats have been sounding the alarm that a shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank would be devastating for American businesses and their workers. Since Republicans in Congress let the Bank's charter expire in June, companies around the country have been preparing to lay off employees, and many have stopped expansion plans because they now lack the critical financing tools that Ex-Im provides. In fact, just last week, General Electric announced that, due to the GOP shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank, more than 500 jobs will be shipped to places like France and China. Last month, Boeing told its workers that it expected to cut as many as several hundred jobs at its southern California-based satellite factory after a multimillion-dollar contract was scuttled due to uncertainty about the future of the Export-Import Bank. Republican obstructionism is also having a direct impact on countless small businesses around this country, many of which are set to lose their Ex-Im-backed insurance policies in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, a majority of this House supports reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, but if we don't give Members the opportunity to vote up or down on reopening the Bank's doors today, the self-inflicted shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank may continue for months on end. If that scenario plays out, the damage to our businesses, their workers, and our economy will only get worse. The consequences for average taxpayers would get worse as well. Because the Bank generates income through fees it charges for its services, failure to reauthorize the Bank means throwing away billions of dollars that would otherwise be transferred to hardworking American taxpayers. Accordingly, we should reauthorize the Bank. If we did, we could raise billions of dollars in profit for U.S. taxpayers over the coming years. The House should take a position. Mr. Speaker and Members, we have too many Republicans, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, claim they support small businesses. They want to do everything that they can to get rid of the regulatory obstacles to small businesses being able to grow and expand. They talk about this with community banks. They talk about this with all kinds of businesses. But look what they are doing.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. And, further, I would like to share with you something from someone that I came to know very well. It is a Washington Post article that I am going to quote from. The quotes will be from Republican and former Treasury Secretary Paulson. He will not only make very strong statements about his support for this deal, he slams the naysayers of this Iranian deal. Let me read from the Washington Post article from August 14 in which former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was asked what he thought about the viability of maintaining multilateral nuclear sanctions against Iran if the United States decided to walk away from the nuclear deal that has just been agreed to between Iran and the international community. It is important to note that former Secretary Paulson, a Republican, was in charge of administering the administration's sanctions under President George W. Bush during the period when the international community was just beginning to enact the current regime of punitive sanctions over Iran's nuclear ambitions. This was his response, ``It's somewhere in between naive and unrealistic to assume that after we, the United States of America, has negotiated something like this, with the five other parties, and with the whole world community watching, that we could back away from that-- and that the others would go with us, or even that our allies would go with us.'' Paulson also viewed as far-fetched the idea that the United States could force other nations into lockstep on a more hard-line approach to Iran by threatening them with secondary sanctions. Again, Mr. Paulson said: `` `I think it's totally unrealistic to believe that if we backed out of this deal, that the multilateral sanctions would stay in place,' Paulson said. `I'm just trying to envision us sanctioning European banks or enforcing them, or Japanese banks, or big Chinese banks.' '' In fact, the former Treasury Secretary could barely hide his disdain for those who think they could strike a path to a better deal than one that has been reached. Further, he said: ``I had a seat in Washington when we dealt with a big, intractable, messy problem, where there weren't any neat, beautiful, elegant solutions.'' He said: ``You were deciding between doing something that objectionable or doing nothing at all, which could even be more objectionable. So I don't particularly like it when people criticize something that's big and important that's been done if they don't have a better idea.'' [From the Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2015] Republican and Former Treasury Secretary Paulson Slams Naysayer of Iran Deal (By Karoun Demirjian) Not many high-profile Republicans have anything nice to say about the Iran deal. But former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson--the guy who was in charge of the government's sanctions operation under President George W. Bush, when the international community was just setting up this regime of punitive measures over Iran's nuclear ambitions--thinks at this point, it would be pretty ill-advised to back away. ``It's somewhere in between naive and unrealistic to assume that after we've, the United States of America, has negotiated something like this with the five other, you know, parties and with the whole world community watching, that we could back away from that--and that the others would go with us, or even that our allies would go with us,'' Paulson said during a forum sponsored by the Aspen Institute on Thursday night to discuss his new book on China. ``And unilateral sanctions don't work, okay?'' Paulson continued. ``They really have to be multilateral.'' Paulson was responding to a question from the moderator of the event, who had asked what Paulson thought about the viability of maintaining sanctions against Iran, should the United States walk away from the agreement struck in Vienna last month. Congress will vote on that very question next month, but naysayers need a veto-proof, two-thirds majority in both houses to kill the deal--a formidable hurdle to clear. In Congress and on the campaign trail, the critics of the deal--many, though not all of them Republicans--have been advocating ripping up the agreement and either leaving the U.S. sanctions in place or stepping them up to make the point to Iran and the international community that the United States means business. Some lawmakers, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), and candidates have even suggested that the United States could force other nations into lockstep on a more hardline approach to Iran by threatening them with secondary sanctions. Paulson thinks that idea is farfetched. ``I think it's totally unrealistic to believe that if we backed out of this deal that the multilateral sanctions would stay in place,'' Paulson said. ``I'm just trying to envision us sanctioning European banks or enforcing them, or Japanese banks, or big Chinese banks.'' Sanctions against Iran have become far more extensive since Paulson left office. And Paulson's comments, delivered in a resort city in Colorado, may not carry that much weight among his GOP colleagues in Washington. The former Goldman Sachs chief executive came to the Treasury Department in 2006 on the eve of a colossal financial crash and left as a controversial figure for the policies he spearheaded. Since leaving that post, he has broken from the mainstream GOP party line to advocate for more attention to issues like climate change. Even others in the Bush administration probably wouldn't agree with Paulson: His former boss, George W., advised against lifting Iran sanctions this spring. But Iran sanctions are Paulson's wheelhouse, and while he didn't direct any darts toward specific politicians or give his own point-by-point assessment of the merits of the deal, Paulson's disdain for those who think they can strike a path to a better solution than the one reached in Vienna was apparent. ``I had a seat in Washington when we dealt with a big, intractable, messy problem, where there weren't any neat, beautiful, elegant solutions,'' Paulson said. ``You were deciding between doing something that was objectionable or doing nothing at all, which could even be more objectionable. ``So I don't particularly like it when people criticize something that's big and important that's been done if they don't have a better idea,'' Paulson said.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard a lot in these debates that have gone on today. I would like to take this opportunity to try to reinforce the tremendous support that we have for this deal. I would like to also debunk the idea that somehow this administration is not concerned enough about the security of this country. Let me just share with you the tremendous support that this deal has. I will do that by reading some excerpts from and insert into the Record an open letter signed by 36 retired U.S. generals and admirals who make the case that addressing the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is far superior than trying to do it militarily. In their letter, these retired military leaders say about the nuclear agreement with Iran, ``There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,'' ``If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.'' Recognizing the importance of strong multilateral coordination and action, the retired military leaders go on to say, ``If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones.'' Mr. Speaker and Members, while I have great respect for all of the Members of this House, for the most part, I do not accept the notion that Members who have not served in the way that these generals and admirals have served this country would know better about our security. So I would like to insert that letter into the Record. The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security--An Open Letter From Retired Generals and Admirals On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain Iran's nuclear program. We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply. There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranian's cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark. We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, ``[r]elieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily.'' If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones. For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to support this agreement. GEN James ``Hoss'' Cartwright, U.S. Marine Corps; GEN Joseph P. Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps; GEN Merrill ``Tony'' McPeak, U.S. Air Force; GEN Lloyd W. ``Fig'' Newton, U.S. Air Force; LGEN Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army; LGEN Arlen D. Jameson, U.S. Air Force; LGEN Frank Kearney, U.S. Army; LGEN Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army; LGEN Donald L. Kerrick, U.S. Army; LGEN Charles P. Otstott, U.S. Army; LGEN Norman R. Seip, U.S. Air Force; LGEN James M. Thompson, U.S. Army; VADM Kevin P. Green, U.S. Navy; VADM Lee F. Gunn, U.S. Navy; MGEN George Buskirk, U.S. Army; MGEN Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army; MGEN Marcelite J. Harris, U.S. Air Force; MGEN Frederick H. Lawson, U.S. Army; MGEN William L. Nash, U.S. Army; MGEN Tony Taguba, U.S. Army; RADM John Hutson, U.S. Navy; RADM Malcolm MacKinnon III, U.S. Navy; RADM Edward ``Sonny'' Masso, U.S. Navy; RADM Joseph Sestak, U.S. Navy; RADM Garland ``Gar'' P. Wright, U.S. Navy; BGEN John Adams, U.S. Air Force; BGEN Stephen A. Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps; BGEN Patricia ``Pat'' Foote, U.S. Army; BGEN Lawrence E. Gillespie, U.S. Army; BGEN John Johns, U.S. Army; BGEN David McGinnis, U.S. Army; BGEN Stephen Xenakis, U.S. Army; RDML James Arden ``Jamie'' Barnett, Jr., U.S. Navy; RDML Jay A. DeLoach, U.S. Navy; RDML Harold L. Robinson, U.S. Navy; RDML Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking Democratic Leader Pelosi for her tireless and unyielding advocacy for the Iran nuclear deal agreed to between Iran and six major world powers, with the unanimous support of the U.N. Security Council. I very much share the leader's view that diplomacy and peace must be given every chance in our dealings with Iran before we contemplate the use of any other options. I also want to acknowledge the fact that, acting with the President's full support, Secretary of State John Kerry has done a masterful job of holding the P5+1 coalition together. It was far from certain that Russia and China, intent as each of them is on reducing America's influence in the world, would continue their participation in the tough multinational effort necessary to get us to this point. This agreement proves that world leaders, despite being divided on a range of issues, can still work together and reach an agreement with profound implications for international peace and security. This is truly extraordinary. I support this agreement not because it is perfect, but because it is a deal that stands up extremely well as a barrier against nuclear proliferation for at least 15 years. It also establishes an intrusive inspections regimen to ensure that Iran's program remains heavily monitored and exclusively peaceful for even longer. One of the most important provisions of this deal allows any permanent member of the U.N. Security Council who can show that Iran has violated the agreement the ability to snap back the tough sanctions that had previously been in place. Now, I know there are critics who believe that, by rejecting the deal and increasing sanctions on Iran, that the U.S. can somehow coerce the leaders of Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear program. As effective as the current sanctions have been in bringing Iran to the table to negotiate, they have not stopped Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state. If Congress rejects this deal, it will not lead to a better one. If the U.S. walks away from this deal, we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. In fact, U.S. rejection of the deal is more likely to isolate the United States rather than Iran from the rest of the world. It would reinforce questions around the world about our commitment to multilateralism and American political dysfunction. Furthermore, it would seriously undermine our ability to lead any future diplomatic efforts on terrorism and on a range of other issues important to our national security interests. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which is necessary for the success of the nuclear deal, the preservation of the international financial sanctions architecture, and for maintaining the credibility of U.S. diplomatic commitments in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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