Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today we have Democrats on the Financial Services Committee here where we have gathered on the House floor to talk about the Export-Import Bank, which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and levels the playing field so that American businesses, large and small, can compete successfully in the global markets. Tomorrow, Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership will leave town for a 5-week congressional recess, and legislation to renew the Export-Import Bank hasn't even seen a vote in our committee. When we return in September, there will be just 10 legislative days to renew the bank before its charter lapses on September 30. This ideological push to abolish the Ex-Im Bank is an irrational crusade to destroy an agency that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and propels economic recovery without costing taxpayers a dime. The result could be the end of an institution that, over the past 5 years, has supported 1.2 million private sector American jobs, and over 200,000 jobs last year alone. Additionally, the Ex-Im Bank reduced our deficit by returning over $1 billion to taxpayers last year alone through interest and fees. Still, critics of the bank say it is a risk to taxpayers, that it picks winners and losers, and that it interferes in the free market and, therefore, creates a less efficient economy. For all of those reasons, it should be abolished, they say. But first, let me say, this notion that there is such a thing as pure free enterprise, that if left to its own devices would flourish with total efficiency and self-discipline and allocate resources and spread risk in such a way that accrues to the benefit of everyone in society, this notion of just pure free enterprise simply doesn't exist. In fact, I thought one of the lessons we learned from the recent financial crisis is that markets must be embedded in systems of governance. The idea that markets are self-correcting, many of us thought, had received a mortal blow. Regardless of the outcome, Republicans have already created uncertainty for thousands of American companies trying to compete against businesses in China, Korea, and across Europe, all of which have their own version of the Ex-Im Bank. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from Mr. Steve Wilburn, who is the CEO of the green energy company FirmGreen, who lost $57 million in contracts because of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Ex-Im Bank. At this time, and before us sharing this information with you, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), and I thank him for the leadership and the support that he has shown for the Export-Import Bank.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, you have heard about businesses in any number of districts that receive the support from the Ex-Im Bank. I would like to read to you excerpts from a letter from Chairman Hensarling's district. This is from Fritz-Pak, and this letter is about how the Ex-Im Bank helped save his business. His name is Gabriel Ojeda, president of Fritz-Pak Corporation, and this is the excerpt I would like to read: During the past 5 years, we have grown our international sales from 15 percent to over 35 percent of our business. We now have major trading partners in over 30 different countries, including Brazil, Russia, India, and Taiwan. Most recently, we exhibited our products at Bauma International Trade Fair in Munich, Germany. So what is Fritz-Pak Corporation today? We are an American manufacturer of the best concrete admixtures in the world, and we sell them as far as Yellowknife, Canada, and as far south as Wellington, New Zealand. We may be small, but we think big. In an age where everything seems to be made someplace else, we are thriving here in the USA and in no small part due to the services provided by Ex-Im Bank. Lastly, I would like to read excerpts from Mr. Mike Boyle of BES&T in New Hampshire. The CEO and president of BES&T is Mr. Michael Boyle, and he sent us a very good letter last week. Mr. Speaker, at a later time, we will enter into the Record these letters that we are not able to read this evening. I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the topic of my Special Order.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I will read into the Record a letter from Steve Wilburn, CEO of the green energy company FirmGreen, who lost a $57 million contract because of uncertainty surrounding the future of the Ex-Im Bank. I will read you excerpts from his letter. Mr. Wilburn attended the Ex-Im Bank panel I organized in April, and last month we invited him back to be one of our Democratic witnesses at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the Ex-Im Bank. He is among the best witnesses we have ever had at a hearing. In his letter, Mr. Wilburn explains that FirmGreen's export potential has been directly affected by the uncertainty of reauthorization of Ex- Im Bank U.S. and the aggressive financial terms offered by the Korean Ex-Im Bank. Attached to his letter is another letter from a company in the Philippines, Green Energy Solutions, informing him that his business lost a $57 million contract. The letter begins: ``Dear Mr. Wilburn, in view of the uncertainty of the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank and project finance structure you proposed have become problematic. We have made the decision in May, this year not to proceed with your project offering.'' Mr. Wilburn goes on to say: ``In summation, as a combat-decorated veteran, small business owner, job creator, exporter, and concerned citizen, I believe we should not unilaterally disarm and abandon the very governmental agency that allows U.S. manufacturers and other U.S. exporters to fairly compete on the world's trading stage.'' Mr. Speaker and Members, the main criticism of the bank that I would like to discuss right now is the assertion that the bank is the embodiment of corporate welfare, benefiting a handful of large companies, which they claim represents crony capitalism. Last April, I held a panel on the Ex-Im Bank which included a number of small business owners from across the country. They came here to Washington to discuss their work with the bank and how the bank helped their companies compete in the global marketplace. Every one of those panel members were extraordinarily decent people, hardworking business owners who create jobs and pay taxes and have families and a civic sense of duty. And this is why I am so offended by this label of ``crony capitalists'' that critics like to attach to users of the bank. Those of us who know what it is like to live behind a label understand how they work. Once you are able to put a label on something or to someone and it sticks, then you could be done with them. And if enough people can be convinced that customers of the Ex-Im Bank are crony capitalists, well, there is nothing left to do but get rid of them. It is so important to note that while a good amount of the bank's support goes to large companies, the vast majority of Ex-Im transactions--nearly 90 percent--help small businesses. In fact, if the Ex-Im Bank were abolished today, it would affect small- and medium- sized businesses just as much, or more, as large exporters--perhaps more, given the distinct challenges and risks small businesses face when looking to export. Moreover, large U.S. exporters that benefit from high dollar values of Ex-Im financing also have large domestic supply chains which consists largely of small- and medium-sized businesses that benefit indirectly but in very important ways from Ex-Im support. At a later time, I will be entering into the Record excerpts from Brek Manufacturing and Hansen Engineering. This letter is from Mr. Greg Lay, vice president of Hansen Engineering. I will read this letter first from Hansen Engineering: Hansen Engineering company is one of many small businesses in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, California, that is dependent on Boeing contracts to support the business. Ninety percent of our contracts support Boeing aircraft, either directly or indirectly, through our prime aerospace companies throughout the world. My company staffs approximately 60 employees who live in the South Bay and surrounding areas and depend upon the support of Boeing for the well-being of their families. Without the reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank, it would be impossible for us to have a big impact on the health of our businesses and its employees and their families. Next we have a letter from Brek Manufacturing: Brek Manufacturing company is a small business in California with 170 employees who have a critical interest in foreign sales of Boeing commercial aircraft. The Export- Import Bank plays an important role as an intermediary in the sale of these aircraft. This letter is to express our support for the Ex-Im Bank, as it is key to securing additional sales of Boeing commercial aircraft. He goes on to say: Our representatives who support the military should also be concerned with the Ex-Im Bank because of the role it plays in supporting jobs and companies like ours, both large and small across the country. He further states: We supply critical aircraft structural components which are key to successful, safe air transport and air defense. There are many others like us who represent thousands of high- skilled and well-paying positions with good benefits. Please express our support for the Ex-Im Bank to your colleagues. We are counting on them to do the right thing and support American manufacturing jobs. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) who is a leader with the bill that would reauthorize the Ex- Im Bank, if we could get the support from the opposite side of the aisle that we need.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I would also like to thank Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, Transportation Security Subcommittee Chairman Richard Hudson, and Ranking Member Cedric Richmond for introducing this bill and bringing it to the floor. I rise to support the passage of H.R. 4802, the Hernandez Airport Security Act. This bipartisan bill was introduced in response to last year's horrific November 1st shooting incident at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in my congressional district. The bill was named in honor of Gerardo Hernandez, the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) who was killed in the line of duty on that tragic day. As we debate this bill, we offer our deepest condolences to the family of Gerardo Hernandez, and we honor all of the TSO's, police officers, and other first responders who risked their lives to stabilize the situation and protect the public during that terrible incident. Following the shooting, Congress conducted several congressional hearings, including a field hearing in my district on March 28, 2014. These hearings revealed serious security lapses at LAX, which interfered with incident response efforts. For example, there were emergency phones and panic buttons that did not work properly, problems in coordination between various police and fire departments, and incompatible radio systems. These security failures are unacceptable. The Hernandez Airport Security Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct outreach to airports to verify that they have working plans to respond to security incidents, including active shooter incidents, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints like the one where Officer Hernandez was killed. It is imperative that major airports like LAX have a state-of-the-art emergency response system. The safety and security of our nation's airports and all of the workers and travelers who pass though them is of paramount importance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President's desk.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a commonsense provision that would help reverse some of the damaging efforts directed at the SEC we have seen this Congress, efforts that have been squarely aimed at hamstringing the Commission, including: underfunding the SEC by $300 million, or 20 percent below the President's fiscal year 2015 request; bogging down the SEC in onerous cost-benefit analysis provisions that would divert resources away from important efforts, like enforcement; and myriad attempts in the Financial Services Committee to limit the information available to retirees that make decisions about whether to put their hard-earned money into public companies. My amendment would help to counteract these efforts by providing the SEC with the authority to impose and collect reasonable user fees on federally registered investment advisers for the purpose of increasing the number and frequency of SEC examinations. This is consistent with my bill, H.R. 1627, the Investment Adviser Examination Improvement Act, which I have coauthored with Representative Delaney. Today, investment advisers may go more than a decade before being visited by the SEC. It is absolutely essential that we improve the oversight of investment advisers, the people that manage the assets of millions of individual and institutional investors across the country. This is particularly true if we are underfunding the SEC by $300 million, as this underlying bill proposes. The SEC currently only examines approximately 9 percent of advisers annually out of the almost 11,000 advisers registered with the Commission. The legislation and this amendment provide the SEC with additional resources to conduct more examinations and protect investors. I believe this amendment and our bill provides the simplest, most efficient solution to the problem of inadequate adviser oversight. Also, because the user fees contemplated in the amendment would only be used to fund the regulation of investment advisers and not to subsidize other functions at the SEC, I think that this option would be more cost-effective for the industry. In fact, a study by the Boston Consulting Group supports that point. This amendment will help the SEC to close this resource gap. By entrusting this responsibility to the Commission, it will also leverage their 70-year history of experience in this regulatory role and prevent the establishment of a duplicative SRO bureaucracy. In addition to consumer and retiree advocates, my bill is supported by the investment adviser industry, including the Investment Adviser Association, the Financial Planning Association, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers, and the Certified Financial Planner Board. They support my bill because they know that clear rules of the road and robust examinations bolster public confidence in the market and ultimately help their bottom line. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman and Members, listening to my friend on the opposite side of the aisle you would think that the SEC has no additional responsibilities. As I quoted in my presentation: The world's capital markets have grown at an ever accelerating rate, and likewise, so have the SEC's responsibilities. Today, the SEC oversees 11,000 investment advisers, 10,000 mutual funds, 4,450 broker-dealers, the securities exchanges, clearing agencies, credit rating agencies, and other self-regulatory organizations. The SEC also reviews the disclosures of nearly 9,000 public companies. And, following the 2008 financial crisis, Congress increased SEC's responsibilities by requiring oversight of hedge funds, municipal advisors, and certain derivatives by passing Dodd-Frank. So, my friend on the opposite side of the aisle disregards all of this as if the SEC doesn't have these expanded responsibilities. They certainly do, and they should be paid for. Again, this does not increase any debt. This is paid for through the many companies that have to pay a small fee, and they will not allow those fees to be used to support the work of the SEC and the IT needs that they have. It does not make good sense.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment to fully fund the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of Wall Street's top sheriffs, at the President's request of $1.7 billion and at no cost to the taxpayer. The United States has the most vibrant capital markets, which are the envy of the world. Both large and small businesses looking to raise capital are able to do so with incredible efficiency and at minimal cost. Businesses are able to do this because their investors know that there are strong rules of the road and a regulator that will hold them accountable. The underlying bill, however, undermines the SEC by cutting nearly $300 million or nearly 20 percent from the requested level. Wall Street's cop is woefully underfunded already, and one need only look as far as its IT budget compared with just a few of the entities it oversees. In fiscal year 2013, the IT budgets of the six largest financial institutions equaled an amount more than 100 times that of the SEC. Although my Republican colleagues suggest that they are generously providing an increase, they use budget gimmicks to mask real cuts to IT infrastructure. The world's capital markets have grown at an ever-accelerating rate, and likewise, so has the SEC's responsibilities. Today, the SEC oversees 11,000 investment advisers, 10,000 mutual funds, 4,450 broker- dealers, the securities exchanges, clearing agencies, credit rating agencies, and other self-regulatory organizations. The SEC also reviews the disclosures of nearly 9,000 public companies. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Congress significantly increased SEC's responsibilities by requiring oversight of hedge funds, municipal advisers, and certain derivatives by passing Dodd-Frank. My amendment is needed to support all of these activities. The Republican bill also includes substantial carve-outs, which will lead to cuts to enforcement and examinations. The SEC will have to impose hiring freezes for lawyers that would have brought enforcement cases against bad actors. Last year, SEC recovered $3.4 billion in 2013--or twice the amount that would fully fund the agency. The SEC will also have to furlough examiners under the Republican bill, examiners that are needed to reduce the backlog of investment advisers that have never been visited by the SEC. There is broad opposition to the Republican funding level. The White House says: At this level, the SEC will be unable to add critical positions in market oversight, compliance, and enforcement to carry out its financial oversight responsibilities. What is really disappointing is that Congress can fund the SEC at any level without affecting the debt and deficit. There are no budget savings from cutting the SEC. That is because the SEC's budget is paid through tiny fees on securities transactions. Here is what CalPERS, the largest public pension plan in the United States, says about SEC funding: The Commission's work can't be achieved without the resources it needs to be effective. The SEC needs to be given the tools to do the job: full and independent funding. In addition, investor advocates like the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, as well as industry groups like the Investment Adviser Association and the Financial Planning Association all support fully funding the SEC, and so should you. A fully-funded SEC helps America's entrepreneurs raise funds to finance jobs and development. A fully-funded SEC ensures that our markets operate efficiently. A fully-funded SEC protects hard-earned savings funding our Nation's retirement and our children's education. I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my earlier presentation, I sent a letter to Chairman Sessions, and I expressed my concerns about this and other provisions that inappropriately legislate on an appropriations bill. While the gentleman from the opposite side of the aisle is saying that this is inappropriate, certainly it has been inappropriate to legislate on this appropriations in the way that they have done in order to remove the protection from the CFPB and allow it to be at the mercy of the politics of the appropriations process in this House, and so I would ask that my amendment be recognized and that we would have a vote on this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Ms. WATERS. My amendment is a simple effort to ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains an effective advocate for American consumers. It is an attempt to correct just one of many bad provisions in this legislation, which underfunds our Wall Street regulators, impedes our ability to identify systemic risk across the United States, and harms the ability of regulators to properly protect our Nation's investors and retirees. Mr. Chairman, I am saddened to be back here fighting to preserve the CFPB. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have aligned themselves with predatory lenders and other bad actors in the financial system at the expense of protecting consumers. It is shameful that, once again, this House is forced to spend precious time and resources tearing down this first-of-its-kind agency which ensures that consumers have an advocate at the highest levels of government--with the power to fight for them. So I would urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will address provisions within this legislation that threaten the independent funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that has been remarkably successful in standing up for consumers and taxpayers who have been subject to the deceptive practices of bad actors in our financial system. To those who have ever fallen victim to a payday or predatory loan, to those who have had a dispute with a credit card company over excessive late fees or interest rates, to those who have had issues with a bank account, mortgage loan, or even a credit score, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is your watchdog. It is your advocate. It is your cop on the beat. And, thus far, your advocate has done an outstanding job. To date, 12.6 million consumers have received more than $3.8 billion in direct refunds because of the CFPB's enforcement actions. In large part, the CFPB is able to accomplish these tasks because of its political independence. It is able to prosecute bad actors without regard for the political blow-back. This is directly due to the CFPB's independent funding stream. But, Mr. Chairman, this legislation would end the Bureau's independence by tying its funding to the highly political congressional appropriations process. The result will be a weakened CFPB, one unable to properly advocate on behalf of our Nation's consumers. And if enacted into law, we would be one step closer to the Republican goal of ending the CFPB altogether--and its work on behalf of our students, seniors, families, and servicemembers. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would end this reckless attempt to politicize consumer protection by removing this provision and replacing it with language that allows the Bureau to maintain its independent funding. Unfortunately, the rules of the House make it impossible to restore CFPB's current funding mechanism. Therefore, this amendment funds the Bureau through the collection of a fee imposed upon banks and financial institutions that have more than $50 billion in assets. I hope my colleagues on the other side would agree with an approach that preserves the independence of our Nation's only consumer financial watchdog without costing taxpayers a dime. Mr. Chairman, while it is certainly a possibility, ruling this amendment out of order would simply demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Last week, in a letter to Chairman Sessions, I expressed my concerns about this and other provisions that inappropriately legislate on an appropriations bill. I asked him not to protect these from a point of order. Since he and his Republican colleagues have refused, I am now forced to offer this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include for the Record this letter. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, July 9, 2014. Hon. Pete Sessions, Chairman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sessions: I write to respectfully request that the Committee on Rules not protect sections 125, 501, 625, 626 and 632 of H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2015, from points of order, as these sections place improper funding restrictions on our financial regulatory agencies and inappropriately authorize on an appropriations bill. Specifically, section 125 of H.R. 5016 places improper funding restrictions on the Office of Financial Research (OFR), the office specifically created in the wake of the worst financial crisis to study systemic risk across the U.S. economy and inform the decisions of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). Section 155 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (P.L. 111- 203) explicitly funds the OFR through assessments on both bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve. Congress provided the OFR with a funding source similar to many FSOC member agencies to ensure that the OFR always had sufficient funding to conduct the research needed to monitor threats to our financial system. Section 125 disregards existing law by subjecting the OFR to the appropriations process beginning in 2015. Additionally, section 501 of H.R. 5016 consists of legislating on an appropriations bill. This section alters section 1017 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which establishes the process by which operations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are independently funded by the Federal Reserve System. It has been well-established that Congress intended for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding to be free of political influence, similar to other independent banking regulatory agencies. Sources of funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been appropriately debated during the current Congress in the authorizing Committee of jurisdiction. I therefore ask that section 501 be exposed to a point of order. Further, several sections of H.R. 5016 place improper restrictions on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In particular, section 625 prevents the SEC from spending from the Reserve Fund for the next year. The Reserve Fund was created under section 991 of the Dodd-Frank Act in order to facilitate long-range planning and budgeting by the Commission, particularly since the Commission's technology systems have traditionally lagged behind dramatic market changes. Also, the Reserve Fund was created because Congress recognized that the Commission requires resources to respond to unforeseen crises such as the so-called ``Flash Crash'' of May 2010, when U.S. stock markets plummeted approximately 9 percent in just a few minutes. Congress already has robust oversight over the use of the Reserve Fund, with the SEC required under the Dodd-Frank Act to notify the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Appropriations within 10 days of making a Reserve Fund obligation. Section 625 would overturn existing law, and create uncertainty both for the future of the SEC's efforts as well as the stability of our financial markets. Additionally, section 626 of H.R. 5016 violates Rule XXI, clause 2, by making changes to SEC's existing authority to regulate the disclosure of material information, which may include political contributions made by corporations. The SEC has broad authority to protect investors by requiring that companies disclose information to the public so that investors can make informed decisions. Although there are questions as to whether political contributions made by companies are material to investors, section 626 would prevent the SEC from even considering this issue. As a result, this provision would hamstring our securities regulator from fulfilling its statutory mandate. Finally, section 632 of H.R. 5016 consists of legislating on an appropriations bill. This section would substantially alter section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires financial institutions with access to the federal banking safety net to spin-off certain swaps dealing activities to separately capitalized affiliates. The underlying section in Dodd-Frank is subject to significant debate, and its inclusion in a spending bill is inappropriate. I therefore also ask that section 632 be exposed to a point of order. In order to uphold the integrity of the appropriations process, I ask that the Committee on Rules submit to the requests contained within this letter. The funding process for our financial regulatory agencies should not be used as a way to side-step the proper role of authorizing Committees in Congress. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Ranking Member.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would first like to thank my colleague from California, Congressman John Garamendi, for this time, and I congratulate him for organizing this evening's Special Order on Alzheimer's disease. John, I would like to tell you that those charts that you just presented tell the story very clearly. It identifies the extent of this disease, and it also lays out that we need to do more with research. We need to invest more in research, but you also showed, for those diseases where we have invested in, that they have reduced the death rates dramatically. I think your presentation needs to be seen by everybody because it does paint the picture of what is going on with this disease. As the cochair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know how devastating this disease can be on patients, families, and caregivers. The task force works on a bipartisan basis to increase awareness of Alzheimer's, strengthen the Federal commitment to improving the lives of those affected by the disease, and assist the caregivers who provide their needed support. I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) has decided to take an active role in the work of the task force, and what a great job he has done. Alzheimer's disease has touched millions of American families. However, most of us are probably unaware of the statistics behind the disease and the significant public health threat it poses to our Nation. In the United States, someone develops Alzheimer's every 67 seconds. According to recent data, women have a one in six estimated lifetime risk of developing the disease at age 65, while the risk for men is nearly one in 11. The Alzheimer's Association estimates as many as 16 million Americans over age 65 could suffer from Alzheimer's by 2050. It is now the fifth leading cause of death in California. Right now, nearly 15 million people--mostly family members--provide unpaid care for individuals with Alzheimer's or dementia, a market value of more than $220.2 billion. In California alone, approximately 1.5 million unpaid caregivers grapple with the tremendous challenges of Alzheimer's disease or dementia every day. Caregivers include spouses, children, even grandchildren. Caregivers face a variety of challenges, ranging from assisting patients with feeding, bathing, and dressing, to helping them take care of their medications, manage finances, and make legal decisions. I want you to know that I have friends who are taking care of both their father and their mother who have Alzheimer's. Caregiving is something that we have to pay attention to. We have to give support to these families because not only is it a tremendous responsibility that so many people are taking on--as compared to caregivers for other diseases, Alzheimer's caregivers disproportionately report being forced to miss work, reduce work hours, quit their jobs, and change jobs due to caregiving demands. They are more likely to experience financial hardship, report health difficulties, experience emotional stress, and suffer from sleep disturbance. These are just some of the reasons why I introduced the Alzheimer's Caregivers Support Act, H.R. 2975, last year. This bill authorizes grants to public and nonprofit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. With the majority of Alzheimer's patients living at home under the care of family and friends, it is important that we ensure these caregivers have access to the training and resources needed to provide proper care. The families and communities facing Alzheimer's also must deal with the difficult problem of wandering. According to the Alzheimer's Association, more than 60 percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander away from home. In addition to being distracting for law enforcement, wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and people who prey on vulnerable seniors. In fact, the Alzheimer's Association estimates that up to 50 percent of wandering Alzheimer's patients will become seriously injured or die if they are not found within 24 hours of their departure from home. To combat this, I have introduced H.R. 2976, a bill to reauthorize and improve the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, a small but effective Department of Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement agencies quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander or are missing and reunite them with their families. The program is a valuable resource for first responders, and it enables law enforcement officers to focus their attention on other security concerns in our communities. Of course, nothing can be more valuable for Alzheimer's patients, their families, caregivers, and communities than a cure for this terrible disease. To that end, we must significantly expand the government's insufficient investment in Alzheimer's research. It is essential that Congress appropriate robust funding for cutting-edge research at the National Institutes of Health. The private sector also has a role to play in funding Alzheimer's research, as do donations from concerned individuals. A simple way for Congress to encourage the public to contribute is to require the U.S. Postal Service to issue and sell a semipostal stamp, with the proceeds helping to fund Alzheimer's research at NIH. This would be similar to the popular and successful breast cancer research semipostal stamp. A bill to do this, H.R. 1508, was introduced by now-Senator Ed Markey prior to his election to the Senate, and I am working very hard to pass it. So as we continue to search for a cure, our Nation is at a critical crossroads that requires decisive action to ensure the safety and welfare of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Together, let us commit to take every possible action to improve treatment for Alzheimer's patients, support caregivers, and invest in research to find a cure for this disease. Once again, I want to thank my colleague, John Garamendi from California, for organizing tonight's Special Order. It is important that we do as much as we can to educate the public, to gain widespread support, to make sure that we have the support that is necessary to get more funding for research. You are doing a fine job of getting us focused. I appreciate that.

Ms. WATERS. Absolutely. I have been watching for some time what caregivers go through in an attempt to provide the care that is needed by Alzheimer's patients, and you hit it on the head when you said: If only these individuals had had a little help in understanding the disease--what is it like? What is likely to happen? What can you anticipate? How should you react, and what can you do to get some help? If that information simply was available, it would be of tremendous help to caregivers, but in addition to that, many of the caregivers put their own well-being at risk in so many ways. Not only do they oftentimes have to lose time from work--which causes difficulties--but many times, the caregivers themselves have health problems that they are addressing that are exacerbated by the fact that they have additional responsibilities in giving care to their Alzheimer's relatives. Yes, I have seen a lot of this, and I know the pain that families go through. As I saw my own mother age--and they said: Ms. Waters, what you are seeing now is dementia. I watched this very vibrant, energetic woman, who lived to be 97 years old, eventually go into a state of being that certainly was not the woman that I had known that had reared me, had been so energetic all of her life. The lapses in memory and finally, toward the end, the inability to recognize her family was a very traumatic and heartbreaking thing to see. So I want for every family the ability to deal with this. I want their government to be of help to them. As you have said, we have got to get our priorities in order. That $80 billion that you mention is a tremendous amount of American taxpayer money that is going toward an effort that most of us don't even understand. There is no reason that we should be in this situation. I am looking at this chart, ``Investments in Health Research.'' That is shameful what I am looking at, only $566 million as compared to what we are putting into other diseases. We don't mind the money that is being put into other diseases. We see how it has reduced debt. We just want attention also to Alzheimer's. I think you have made it very clear this evening with the information that you have presented.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much for yielding additional time to me to talk about cost-benefit analysis. I think the gentlelady has made a real case for what we are dealing with here. First of all, we know--and I guess we all agree--that prior to the meltdown that we had that caused the recession in this country, we did not have the kind of oversight that we needed on derivatives. We worked very hard to bring about transparency. We worked very hard to get a handle on the role that derivatives played in this meltdown we had that caused us almost to go into a depression. And here we are trying to implement the reforms, trying very hard to protect the American public and those ends users that have been talked about so much today. Cost-benefit analysis is just another way that has been injected into this whole attempt to regulate that would place unreasonable burdens on the CFTC and basically prohibit them from doing their job. In offering this amendment, the gentlelady has made it very clear, and she has added additional support to what we have been talking about today relative to cost-benefit analysis. And so I hope that not only the information we have presented, but the information that she has presented is enough to have people understand what we need to do in order to protect the CFTC's ability to do its job and to carry out its mission.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to our H.R. 4413 legislation that would reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This measure addresses an important goal for this Congress: reauthorization of the CFTC, our regulator whose mission it is to ensure fair rules of the road for the majority of derivatives traded by U.S. firms. I know that Representative Peterson and Representative Scott, the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee respectively, have worked in good faith to improve this legislation and that they care deeply about making the CFTC work for farmers, manufacturers, and other businesses that use futures and derivatives. I thank them for their efforts. However, I am concerned about provisions in the bill unrelated to the reauthorization of the Commission that I believe would undermine the CFTC's authority and hamstring its ability to regulate a complex and important marketplace. Mr. Chairman, this legislation imposes heavy administrative burdens that will prevent, delay, or weaken CFTC's efforts to implement important reforms called for by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. H.R. 4413 would also make it much more difficult for the CFTC and the SEC to regulate derivatives transactions involving foreign operations of U.S. banks. It does so by establishing hard-to-overturn exemptions that allow their operations to substitute Dodd-Frank rules in favor of more lenient foreign rules in foreign markets, despite the fact that the risks may come back to the United States. These types of derivatives transactions contributed to the massive taxpayer bailout of AIG in 2008, created enormous losses to JPMorgan in the London Whale episode in 2012, and brought down the hedge fund Long- Term Capital Management in the 1990s. This bill makes the job of the CFTC and the SEC to police derivatives operations of large U.S. banks and their foreign affiliates much more difficult. In addition, under the guise of cost-benefit analysis, the bill imposes heavy administrative hurdles and new litigation risk on the CFTC, significantly impairing the Commission's ability to do its job of regulating our derivatives markets. Like other agencies, the CFTC already considers the costs and benefits pursuant to numerous existing laws, and unlike any other regulator, the CFTC goes even further, considering the protection of market participants and the public, the effect on futures markets, price discovery, sound risk management practices, and other public interest matters. Even the courts have weighed in, finding that the CFTC has fulfilled its duty to consider the cost and benefits. H.R. 4413 not only burdens an agency already facing limited funding with additional administrative burdens, but it also opens up new avenues for special interests to endlessly challenge the CFTC in court. Former CFTC Chairman Gensler noted that, if this provision in H.R. 4413 is enacted, ``It may well be hard to get any rule out of the building.'' Together, these changes undermine the CFTC's ability to guard against some of the most complex and risky activities in our financial system, and it is all just part of a multifaceted Republican effort to undercut laws and regulations that protect consumers, investors, and the economy. It also comes just a week after House Republicans proposed an appropriations measure that dangerously underfunds the CFTC at 22 percent below the President's request, a level which will lead to either agencywide closures or employee layoffs. Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to undercut and underfund Wall Street's top derivatives cop with the authority to ensure compliance with the law. This bill is widely opposed by the Obama administration, the AFL/CIO, broad coalition groups like Americans for Financial Reform and the Consumer Federation of America, as well as derivatives end users like the Petroleum Marketers Association of America. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I insert in the Record the opposition, including the White House opposition to this legislation. Public Citizen, June 16, 2014. Dear Representative: Public Citizen opposes H.R. 4413, ``The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.'' Several provisions will severely undermine financial reform. These include: Adding unworkable cost-benefit analysis requirements that will only empower industry interests to bring litigation that will delay or negate important rules and do nothing to improve Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulations. Prohibiting the CFTC from supervising US swap operations overseas, which will invite riskier activity and raise the potential for more bailouts; Eliminating the ability of the CFTC to require certain safety rules for swaps. New Cost-Benefit Requirements Don't Pass The Cost-Benefit Test Wall Street has exploited the courts to delay, dilute and even overturn needed reform laws intended to return the financial industry to safer practices. Instead of making the CFTC more effective and efficient by bolstering their authority and improving their standing vis a vis the courts, H.R. 4413 actually makes the CFTC even more vulnerable to Wall Street lawsuits. The net effect will be weaker rules that will take the CFTC longer to finalize and will be more prone to reversal in court. In sum, this legislation will significantly damage, not improve, the CFTC's ability to adopt strong financial reforms that protect consumers and the public. H.R. 4413 patently ignores the fact that the CFTC takes their cost-benefit requirements very seriously. In September 2010, the CFTC's General Counsel and Acting Chief Economist directed staff to produce cost-benefit analyses in proposed rulemakings and conceptual cost-benefit analyses in adopting releases. This is above and beyond existing CFTC requirements. In a follow-up memo, rule-making teams were directed to ``incorporate the principles of Executive Order 13563'' when writing rules. This order applied cost-benefit analysis requirements for departments overseen by the President. In May 2012, the CFTC, in an unprecedented move, entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) where OIRA provides ``technical assistance'' to CFTC staff during implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, ``particularly with respect'' to cost- benefit analysis. Thus, the litany of additional cost-benefit analyses imposed by H.R. 4413 in no way improves the existing and extensive cost-benefit analysis practices at the CFTC. Rather the direct effect will be to convert the cost-benefit analyses the CFTC already conducts as a matter of best practice into numerous new legal grounds for Wall Street to challenge CFTC rules in court. Thus, the beneficiaries of these changes will be big Wall Street banks and their high- priced lawyers while the public pays the price of a far slower CFTC that must jump through even more hoops before putting common-sense Wall Street reforms in place. Evading US Supervision Some of the most dangerous financial practices by US firms leading to the financial crisis of 2008 were conducted overseas. AIG sold a form of bond insurance called credit default swaps from its London office, out of view of American supervisors. When AIG could not pay massive claims from bond defaults, taxpayers bailed out AIG's clients with $160 billion. More recently, JP Morgan's ``Whale'' transactions used US deposits for speculative derivatives trading in London, leading to a loss of more than $6 billion. Section 359 nullifies the CFTC's rubric for overseeing American firms with foreign-based swaps business. Instead, it permits US firms to establish foreign-incorporated affiliates that would escape US supervision altogether. Already, certain US firms have begun to exploit a loophole in the CFTC's current rules to escape US supervision. This involves removing the guarantee of the US parent for the foreign- originated swap. Permitting foreign supervision is misguided because foreign supervisors won't have the same motivation as US supervisors to enforce prudential rules since a failure would fall on US taxpayers. In fact, foreign governments would be incentivized to relax oversight so as to attract more traders and the associated income tax revenue they would generate. The financial sector provides more than 11 percent of total tax revenue for the United Kingdom. Not only does this legislation increase the chance for another US taxpayer bailout, it would sacrifice US tax revenue by incentivizing American firms to relocate their derivatives business abroad. Safety margins prohibited Unregulated swaps were at the heart of the financial crash, as derivatives dealers who failed to back up their swaps with adequate collateral spread financial contagion. This legislation removes some of the tools that the CFTC could use to promote safety. For example, H.R. 4413 prohibits the CFTC from requiring that end-users post margin collateral. The CFTC has declared that it would not require such margin, but it is important for the agency to retain this power if the market becomes unsafe in the future. This is just one example of the flaws of this bill. There are many other sections that limit the ability of the CFTC to accomplish its mission of protecting investors and the public from misconduct in the $700 trillion swaps market. We believe Congress should be exploring ways to strengthen the agency, such as with self-funding and a larger budget, rather than working to undermine it. We urge the House to reject H.R. 4413. For more information, please contact Public Citizen's Congress Watch Advocates: Amit Narang, Regulatory Policy Advocate at anarang@citizen.org;, or Bartlett Naylor, Financial Policy Advocate, at bnaylor@citizen.org. Sincerely, Amit Narang. Bartlett Naylor.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment to ensure that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission can adequately regulate our financial markets and address some of the very practices that so seriously harmed our economy just a few years ago. This amendment modestly improves the onerous cost-benefit considerations included in this bill, a provision that would open the Commission up to expensive legal challenges. It does so by adding in language from the President's executive order on cost- benefit analysis that prohibits judicial review. The bill's sponsors cite this order as the model of good analysis and incorporate many provisions of that order in this legislation. However, the measure before us today inconsistently omits the order's prohibition on judicial review, thereby subjecting the CFTC's most cost-benefit considerations to increase litigation risk--risk that no other agency complying with the executive order has faced. My amendment would correct this oversight and prevent special interest groups from using the cost-benefit provision as a club to delay, weaken, or kill financial reform. My colleagues--Representative DelBene, Representative Gibson, and Representative Vargas--share my concerns and have proposed an amendment that would establish a heightened standard of judicial review. While I support this amendment, it does not go far enough, in my view, to fix the problem. I believe that judicial review with regard to the heightened cost-benefit provisions in the underlying bill should be prohibited entirely. Make no mistake, even if the amendment offered previously by my colleagues on judicial review--or, for that matter, my amendment--is adopted, the bill would still impose heavy administrative hurdles on the CFTC. The Commission is already required to consider the costs and benefits when promulgating rules and issuing orders pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as other agencies do. Unlike any other financial regulator, the CFTC is also already bound by the Commodity Exchange Act to consider the impact of their rules on the full range of market stakeholders. The courts have weighed in as well, finding that the CFTC has fulfilled its duty to consider the costs and benefits, as in the rule related to commodity pool operators. The CFTC will still have to expand resources to comply with this provision that Republicans are unwilling to provide. Instead, the CFTC will have to take funds from examinations and enforcement to pay for redundant economic analysis. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that will simply prevent our Nation's top directives cop from spending excessive time and resources fighting off superfluous legal challenges and would make the underlying bill consistent with the President's executive order. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining on this amendment?

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make clear my opposition to anything other than preventing judicial review on cost-benefit analysis. Again, I am very appreciative to my colleagues who also share my concerns and, again, have proposed an amendment that would establish a heightened standard of judicial review, and I support that amendment. I do not want anyone to be confused that I believe that that amendment would solve the problem. I still think that, if that amendment is adopted, the bill would still impose heavy administrative hurdles on the CFTC. This is not about simply reauthorization at any cost with anything in the bill. This is about having a CFTC that really works, that is not burdened with the kind of cost-benefit analysis that we have seen burdening other of our agencies that have tried to do their job, including the SEC. I would ask my friends who are listening to differentiate between that amendment of my colleagues, who are addressing this concern in their way, and my amendment that would prevent judicial review altogether. I yield back the balance of my time.