Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was designed with one goal in mind: we were giving consumers a fair shake in the marketplace by making sure they finally had a regulator who was on their side. The CFPB is the only agency with the expertise and the mission to focus on developing trends in the consumer finance marketplace, identify abuses, and stop them before they lead borrowers into financial ruin. Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, consumer financial laws were supposed to be enforced by cooperation amongst all of the regulators. But as we now know all too well, safety and soundness concerns time and again trumped those of consumer protection, leading to the system where all of the regulators were responsible and none of them were accountable. It was precisely this inattention to consumer protection that allowed the crisis to boil up under regulators' noses, leaving American families to foot the bill. Fortunately, Congress learned the lesson that strong protections for consumers are essential to maintaining a stable and sound economic foundation. Upon passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, this House finally had put a cop on the beat with exclusive authority to issue sensible rules that protect every American. We are confident that the CFPB will continue to work diligently with prudential regulators to make sure their rules are consistent with the safe and sound operations of banks, ensuring that both rulemaking and enforcement authorities reside exclusively with the CFPB and will increase confidence in consumer markets and also ensure certainty for businesses and financial institutions. Returning to the broken model that existed before the crisis just doesn't make good sense. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, we have had discussions with Members on the opposite side of the aisle about protection for our consumers. We have heard them tell us everything about people should have choices. They can go and hire their own lawyers, they can go into court. They can do all of these things. The fact of the matter is, government does have the responsibility to protect consumers. This is a government of laws and rules that we put together for businesses. We allow businesses to operate in certain ways, but we cannot allow them to run roughshod over consumers. Like I said, prior to Dodd-Frank, that is, the reform, we had nobody looking out for consumers. We had our financial services agencies of government saying that their real job was for safety and soundness, not for consumer protection. So we have had news media, we have had nonprofit agencies, we have had groups getting together trying to address all of these abuses, all of these problems all by themselves. Well, guess what? Now we have a cop on the block. It is your government. This consumerfinance.gov Web site is there for all of our citizens. This telephone number, (855) 411-2372, is there for our consumers to call, and while you are calling the Bureau, call your elected officials also and ask them why they don't stand up for you, why they are on the floor of Congress advocating against your right to have protection from all of these kinds of abuses. Enough is enough. Americans consumers are losing dollars every day because of crooks and schemes and thieves and on and on and on, and now you get rid of the very agency that would protect them from all of these schemes? I am so happy that we have reform. I am so happy that now the American people can rely on their government to come to their aid. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3193, legislation that would gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that has been a critical and effective advocate for our Nation's consumers. Today's vote is just the latest chapter in a relentless Republican attack on consumer protection. Since opening its doors in 2011, the CFPB has gone to bat for those who have been subject to the deceptive practices of unscrupulous financial institutions. Though it has been immensely successful, Republicans have tried to undercut it in every way possible. Mr. Chairman, in just over 2 years, CFPB's enforcement actions have resulted in over $3 billion being directly refunded to more than 9.7 million consumers and servicemembers. The CFPB has ensured that all consumers have fair and transparent access to consumer financial products and services. It has written important mortgage rules that prevent lenders from engaging in the risky and irresponsible practices that led to the collapse of the housing market and fueled the 2008 global financial crisis; and it continues to go after industries and institutions that, for years, have not been held accountable for abusive and deceptive practices. The CFPB ensures that the tens of millions of consumers who interact with large consumer reporting agencies, debt collectors, payday lenders, and nonbanks originating mortgage loans have an advocate in their corner. In fact, in fiscal year 2013, the CFPB was a party in 13 enforcement actions related to deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, discrimination on the basis of age, unlawful charging of fees, and fraudulent mortgage relief schemes, among other violations. Since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened its doors, more than 269,000 individual consumer complaints have been received, and it has stood up for our Nation's Active Duty military who so greatly serve us, returning more than $12.5 million to them under the Military Lending Act. Just yesterday, CFPB announced a lawsuit against a large for-profit college chain, accusing it of preying on students by pushing them into high-cost loans, very likely to end in default. But my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that we should have a consumer advocate in government. They would prefer that these unscrupulous actors continue to take advantage of consumers without interference. The simple fact is that H.R. 3193 would accomplish this goal, obstructing the CFPB's ability to protect consumers from deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, lending discrimination, overcharge fees, and other illegal activity. The bill does so by undermining CFPB's leadership, ending its autonomy, and tying its funding to Congressional appropriations, among other ways. In fact, Republicans have brought this bill to the floor claiming a cost savings, but they know that the only way a savings is realized is by slashing the budget of the CFPB, the sole agency charged with consumer financial protections. But that is not all. The provisions included in this measure would eliminate the position of the CFPB director in favor of some five- member commission that would increase bureaucracy--encouraging, inviting--and encumber its ability to take action on behalf of consumers. It would water down the CFPB's rulemaking authority by lowering the bar for overturning its rules. Many of the amendments offered today would make this bill even worse. For example, the measure offered by Congressman DeSantis would repeal the Bureau's exclusive rulemaking authority, dispersing responsibility for protecting consumers among the same regulators who failed miserably in this task in the run-up to the financial crisis. It is striking to listen to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle talk about the importance of consumer protection and then push a measure that is an obvious attempt to completely undermine and obstruct the CFPB's ability to protect consumers, students, seniors, and servicemembers. If holding the Bureau accountable to its mission to protect American consumers truly is a Republican's goal, then why are we considering a bill which is strongly opposed by more than 100 organizations with long records of standing up for the interest of consumers? I would urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging measure so the CFPB can continue its outstanding work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Heck, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and who has paid a lot of attention to this issue.

Ms. WATERS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I am waiting for additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is the House Democrats who are required to take the important action to protect our Nation's well- being. Today, most House Republicans will once again refuse to stand behind the full faith and credit of the United States, threatening an economic catastrophe for all Americans. When Republicans pushed our Nation to the brink of default last year, refusing to increase the debt limit, businesses, large and small, began to cut back by slowing spending and hiring. Consumer confidence fell faster than at any other time since the financial crisis in 2008. Potential home buyers didn't buy homes. But despite these warnings, House Republicans still want to push us to default, and the consequences would be disastrous. The value of our 401(k)s and IRAs would plummet, significantly hurting those saving for retirement. For consumers, a default would make credit cards, mortgages, and student and automobile loans all more expensive. Default would lead to a U.S. credit rating downgrade, making it harder for new businesses to hire new employees and our cities and States to finance schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges. Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford another round of Republican recklessness. Everyone from Wall Street CEOs to conservative economists agree: we need to honor our debts. I and my Democratic colleagues will once again do what is necessary. I urge the Republicans to put Americans before ideology and support this legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for allowing me to take some time to be on this floor to plead with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to join with us in support of our middle class citizens who now have their homes at risk. Mr. Speaker, I plead with the opposite side of the aisle to join with what is a bipartisan piece of legislation, a bicameral piece of legislation, legislation that was passed out by the Senate that would correct the unintended consequences of the Biggert-Waters Act. Why am I so passionate about this? First of all, I was a coauthor of the Biggert-Waters Act. It was a bill that we got together on where we tried to reduce the debt that we are confronted with, providing assistance and subsidies to our homeowners. Many of our homeowners, as you know, across this country are put at risk. Their homes are destroyed through natural disasters. We have to be available to them through this kind of insurance program, the National Flood Insurance Program. So we have the Senate, we have Republicans, we have Democrats who have all joined in with us to do something very simple: delay this for a time period. Delay this for 4 years so we can get on FEMA, and FEMA can get it right. FEMA messed up the Biggert-Waters bill. We said, You have to do an affordability study. They did not do that. We said, You have to get your mapping and your remapping right. They have not done that. We said, Get a credible database. They have not done that. We have got to correct FEMA. There is no reason why people should be having their premiums increased by 500 percent. This is wrong. We can do something about it. Don't stand in the way of coming to the assistance of American citizens who depend on us in their time of trouble.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker and Members of Congress, we should not have to even debate this any further. It is outrageous that we have learned what we have learned about the failed implementation of FEMA with the Biggert- Waters plan and that we will not do something about it. Let me just say this: I joined with Mrs. Biggert, and we tried to reform the National Flood Insurance Program. We went about it in a way that we thought would make it possible for people to be able to afford--to pay for--the National Flood Insurance Program and not in a way that would cause them to lose their homes. It passed through this House. It passed through the other body. It went out to FEMA. What did FEMA do? It did not do what we instructed it to do. First of all, we said: Have a study on affordability. The second thing we said was: Look at the way you do mapping and remap it. We encouraged them to get good data to be able to do this work. They have failed us, and they have failed the citizens of this country. Not only have they failed the citizens of this country, but middle class people in this country--homeowners--are now about to lose their homes. A California family is facing a flood insurance premium increase from $1,700 per year up to $22,000 per year--an increase of over 1,100 percent. I have traveled around the country. I was down in Louisiana. We have Members across the country who are representing Florida and New York and California, on and on and on. They are begging this Congress to do something about these unintended consequences. I was coauthor on the Biggert-Waters bill. I know what we attempted to do. These unintended consequences are just that. It should not be happening this way. This is not a partisan bill. This is a bill that has got support from Democrats and Republicans. You heard the previous speaker talk about 183 Members on this bill. The Senate passed it out with flying colors, and now it is on us. What are we going to do? Are we going to allow middle class families to lose their homes because FEMA has not done its job and has not done it correctly? Are we going to allow these families to be put out of homes that they have lived in for years because now, with these increased premiums, they can't sell them? This is unconscionable. We can do better than this. I can go on and on and tell you about the families and the letters we have received. It is time for the House of Representatives to consider this legislation. We must address this problem now before one more family suffers from increased premiums, depressed home prices, or the inability to buy or sell their homes. Bring it to the floor. I have talked with the chairman of our committee. I would like everybody to address concerns to the chairman and get this bill to the floor so that we can help our homeowners and our constituents.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, while this agreement is an improvement over the harmful sequester, it fails to adequately fund Wall Street's cops, shortchanges many housing programs, and ignores the global economy. While the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission need more resources to oversee Wall Street, this bill only provides flat funding to the already-underfunded SEC and a nominal bump for the CFTC. Yes, no furloughs, but no new examiners either. Regarding housing, the bill offers minimal increases for section 8 vouchers and the Community Development Block Grant program but not enough for Americans struggling with long-term unemployment and foreclosure. Finally, Republican isolationists have excluded the International Monetary Fund reform package. Democrats and businesses agree a well- equipped IMF that leverages billions of global dollars is in our national interest. Despite these concerns, we must pass this bill. Reluctantly, I support this bill. We have to stop the sequester and prevent another government shutdown.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' shameful refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect 238,855 workers in California, my State.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would certainly like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative Mark Pocan, for yielding to me, and I congratulate him for organizing this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order on unemployment insurance. Fifty years ago this weekend, in his the State of the Union address, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty. He introduced Federal legislation, even proposed State initiatives that would over time improve health, education, nutrition, and access to housing, employment, and economic opportunity. Although America has changed a great deal since that day, poverty and economic inequality are still at the forefront of our Nation's problems. They are only exacerbated by the Great Recession. The gap between the rich and poor in America has become a chasm. Today, 20 percent of the income in our country goes to the top 1 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent holds about 40 percent of the country's wealth. This inequality is mirrored in our communities, our housing and rental markets, and our financial system, where a lack of access to banking services often causes working families to have debts that spiral out of control. Mr. Speaker, inequality in this country has reached a point that for many, the American Dream of upward mobility and unlimited economic opportunity has been greatly diminished. The 2008 financial crisis cost our economy $12 trillion, as millions lost their homes and jobs. This destruction of wealth disproportionately hurt our Nation's most vulnerable and only widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Even the gains from growth during the recent recovery have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest people in society. Almost 95 percent of the income gains since the recovery began have been captured by the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, the minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable. Chronic unemployment and poverty still plague many of our communities. American families are still struggling to make ends meet. Four million Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, and the economy still has 1 million fewer jobs than before the Great Recession began. Those there are other factors at play. Much of this inequality is a result of some of the government policies that we make, and government policy can help reverse these alarming trends. But instead, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are digging us deeper and deeper into this crisis. They passed the farm bill that cuts SNAP nutrition program for low-income families by $40 billion, and then the Republicans let unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployment expire 3 days after Christmas. Already, 1.3 million unemployed Americans have lost their Federal unemployment insurance. That includes 20,000 military veterans. Each day this program sits expired, thousands of additional struggling Americans are adversely affected. As State benefits are exhausted in the first 6 months of 2014, an additional 1.9 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. In fact, every week another 72,000 job-seekers will lose their benefits during the first half of this year. Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is critical to struggling families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million people above the poverty line in 2012, including 600,000 children. Unemployment insurance is good for the economy. According to Moody's Analytics, every dollar of unemployment insurance generates $1.55 in new economic activity in the first year. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 200,000 jobs could be lost in our economy if unemployment insurance is not extended. We must act and act immediately to extend unemployment insurance. So I call on my Republican colleagues to bring the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, that is H.R. 3824, to the House floor and pass it now. With one in five American children living in poverty, it is clear that the war on poverty has gone on for far too long. Let's take action now to have all Americans share in our Nation's growth and prosperity. Let's bring an unemployment extension bill to the floor, and let's bring it now. Let's bring a substantive jobs bill to the floor now, and let's bring a minimum wage increase to the floor now. American families have suffered enough. It is time to restore the American Dream. As I wrap up, let me just say this on behalf of the American people. I hear these arguments every day from the opposite side of the aisle saying if you can continue to extend these unemployment benefits, you are simply going to undermine the will for people to go to work. What you are going to do is make them comfortable on these unemployment benefits, and they won't go look for a job. Well, I want to tell you I have not talked to everyone whose on unemployment or who needs extended benefits; but I can tell you this, American folks want jobs, they want to work, they want to earn a decent living, they want to earn wages to take care of their families and their children. Their aspirations and their goals are the same as yours and mine. They want what America has promised. I would say to those who would continue this argument, don't disrespect the American people that way. Don't undermine the American people that way. Do what you know is right, what makes good sense, and let us help out those who are the most vulnerable, who need us now at this time so that they can continue to look for jobs, so that they continue to aspire to have the American Dream, and I thank you very much.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for that warm introduction, and I want to thank the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. We just returned from South Africa where we participated with thousands of folks from across South Africa memorializing Nelson Mandela. It was a wonderful moment in our lives. But, of course, Nelson Mandela has helped us all to be better persons. He has inspired us all in so many different ways. When I was a member of the California State Legislature, I authored the legislation that divested all of our pension funds from doing business in South Africa. That legislation caught fire across the country. And so that legislation caught fire across the country, and we had other divestment movements going on, and others divesting their funds from businesses that were doing business in South Africa. We went on to have rallies and marches. We came to Washington, D.C. We got arrested at the South African Embassy. We sat in in the South African consulate in Los Angeles. We worked with students on the college campuses. They got involved in divestment. Some of them took the names of the streets in those campuses down and made them Nelson Mandela Way. And as we worked and worked, we were instrumental in helping to free Nelson Mandela, who had served 27 years in prison. In addition to that, some of us had the opportunity to go to South Africa when they lifted the ban on the ANC, and we witnessed all of those heroes who came back from out of exile. We continued to work with them until Nelson Mandela walked out free from having served that 27 years. And then we were able to welcome him to the United States. In Los Angeles we put together a huge celebration, and when he and Winnie Mandela walked on that stage, the crowd just exploded. But it exploded because here was a man who had the courage of his convictions, a man that was so committed to freedom, justice, and equality that he was willing to put his life on the line. He was a warrior, and he tried to negotiate. He tried to get the South African Government to realize that they should be recognizing that Black South Africans were human beings too. And when they didn't, he organized the struggle. He resisted and, of course, they placed him in prison. And some people thought that we would never see Black South Africans free. But because of Nelson Mandela, and because the people loved him so, followed him as he led, today we have a free South Africa. Mandela is gone. He is no longer with us, but he will be remembered forever because what he did was such a feat that we cannot identify anybody else, certainly in the 20th century, that led the way that he led. So I am pleased to be here with my colleagues tonight paying tribute to him. I thank my colleagues for all the work that they too participated in to honor him.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Rep. Mark Pocan) for organizing last night's Special Order Hour on raising the minimum wage and the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I very much welcome this opportunity to talk about trade issues, the minimum wage, and the growing wage gap in our country because they are closely related, in different ways, to one of the most urgent social, economic and political challenges of our time. I'm talking about the problem of growing inequality in the United States. Over the past three decades, income inequality in the United States has been steadily on the rise. In fact, just before the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. reached levels of inequality not seen since the late 1920s. Today, the United States has the highest level of inequality of any advanced industrial nation. According to an analysis by the AFL-CIO, the average CEO at 327 available companies in the S&P 500 index is paid 354 times the average worker. Moreover, a recent study showed that in 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the Nation's income growth gained during the economic recovery. So, this means that the most unequal advanced industrial economy in the world is becoming more so. It is time to have an open debate and discussion on the wage gap in our country. This is important from a moral standpoint, as a matter of equity and fairness. But it is also important from an economic and political standpoint. That is, excessive inequality not only undermines social and political cohesion, it has also been shown to have negative effects on growth. Recent research at the IMF has shown that excessive inequality slows growth because depressed earnings lead to weaker demand and lower consumption. Now, I understand that in a capitalist system, some degree of inequality is necessary for the function of a market economy, since it creates incentives to work hard and take risks. Left entirely to its own, however, the market system will produce more inequality than is economically necessary. And here in America, we have much more inequality than is necessary for efficiency. This is also a political problem. We now have an increasing degree of resistance on the part of a lot of Americans to efforts to enter into new trade agreements because they are viewed as elevating the interests of capital over all other considerations. Last month, I joined with 150 of my congressional colleagues in a letter to the President to express our serious concerns about the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We urged the President to engage in broader and deeper consultations with Members of Congress about what will be included in this broad-ranging international trade agreement. In addition to tariff issues, this agreement could include provisions related to labor, food, natural resources, the environment, patent and copyright law, health care, energy, telecommunications and financial services. As the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, it is particularly important to me that my committee is consulted about any provisions affecting financial services. Past trade negotiations have resulted in NAFTA, the creation of the World Trade Organization, and Free Trade Agreements with Central American countries, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. All of these agreements were promoted by large corporations, which claimed they would create jobs. But these were empty promises, and many of these same large corporations have continued to ship jobs overseas. What American workers need is good jobs with good pay. That is why we need to make this discussion of the wage gap and the minimum wage a top priority. The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour for the past four years. The value of the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living, and record-breaking corporate profits have not trickled down to working people. The real value of the minimum wage is at a historic low. Today, 40 percent of American workers actually make less than the minimum wage was worth back in 1968. That is almost one quarter of American workers. Too many American families who depend upon the minimum wage are seeking Food Stamps and Section 8 housing assistance and are constant visitors to our food banks. The American people understand the importance of fair wages, and many States and local communities have taken matters into their own hands. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 States and the District of Columbia already have a minimum wage that is higher than the Federal minimum wage. The National Conference of State Legislatures also reports that in 2013, the legislatures in California, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island all passed bills to increase the minimum wage beginning in 2014. The legislature in California increased the minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2016. In New Jersey, voters approved a constitutional amendment to increase the minimum wage. In Maryland, the county councils in Montgomery and Prince George's counties both voted to increase the minimum wage to $11.50, higher than any rate currently in effect in the United States. The Fair Minimum Wage Act--H.R. 1010--would increase the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour over three years and then index it to inflation. I am one of 150 cosponsors of this bill. It is time for Congress to debate the issue of raising the minimum wage, as well as other policies to address the growing wage gap in our country. This debate must take place in full view of the American public. Increasing the minimum wage will send a clear signal to Americans that we understand that the benefits of growth and free trade need to be more broadly shared in society. It's the right thing to do morally, economically, and politically.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) manage the time at this time.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for managing in my absence. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come back to the floor to add a few comments. Prior to leaving, the chairman of this committee talked about this being a job creation bill. He wrapped this bill in jobs creation. And I must say that I don't think that the gentleman has much else he could say about why they are trying to exempt all of these private equity funds from registering with the SEC. Wrapping it in this notion of they are creating all of these jobs and we should all be very appreciative is one way to deflect attention from the fact that here we have private equity funds. $180 million from the smaller private equity funds have been exempted already. Those firms that have $180 million in those funds or less are already exempted. That was done in the Dodd-Frank legislation. Now they are coming back and they are saying exempt everybody. What is it you are trying to hide? Why is it you do not want these firms to register? Well, first of all, they are registered at this point. The SEC is given the oversight and the regulation that they need, and they are finding that it is very important for them to do so because they are finding that there are unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading, conflicts of interest, and misappropriations of assets, et cetera. That is not to say that all private equity funds are doing these things, but weeding out the bad actors is extremely important. The SEC is our cop on the block. They are there to protect the investors. This is their number one responsibility, and we want them to do this. Just as you have CalPERS from California, which is against this bill, they should be against this bill. They have the retirement funds of policemen and firemen and all of the middle class people that make up the basis of this economy. Well, let me just add to the ones that were mentioned by my friend from Massachusetts. We also have Americans for Financial Reform. We also have the Consumer Federation and all of the State regulators who are against this bill. And the President's advisers have said they are recommending a veto. What do you have to hide? Why don't you want registration? That is the question that must be asked. That is the question that has really not been answered. Mr. Speaker and Members, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill because we endanger the investors that they claim they want to protect because they claim they want them to produce all of these jobs, and certainly that will never happen if we allow the kinds of situations to continue to happen that were described in the discussion about Bain Capital in the Presidential election debates. Further, let me just say that we have worked very, very hard to try to make sure that we have protection. That is the role of the SEC. And again, they already have these registered private equity firms that they are taking a look at, and they are learning things about them. And this information will be used to make sure that we have the kind of private equity funds that can do the kind of jobs that we want them to do. Yes, we appreciate investment. Yes, we want job creation. But why should we have private equity funds that somehow have no oversight, that don't have anybody scrutinizing what they are doing? Why is it we don't want any regulatory agencies looking at them? That just doesn't make good sense. And I would say to my friends, you have to oppose this bill. There will be an amendment coming up that was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that makes good sense. And if they had gone to that simply as a way of trying to help out in this area, they could have gotten a lot of support, but they have stepped way over the line when they say no oversight, no scrutiny by the SEC or anybody else.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment today, which helps ensure that our derivatives regulator can protect our financial markets and economy. This amendment improves the funding situation of the CFTC by giving back $10 million that my Republican colleagues proposed to cut earlier this year. Many Americans are unaware that the CFTC is charged with enforcing laws designed to thwart Wall Street from manipulating the cost of commodities, which affects the price at the pump and the cost of food on our plates. Just as importantly, the CFTC has been tasked with writing and enforcing rules reforming the financial markets and participants like AIG that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. For these reforms to have teeth, we need a cop with the resources and staff to hold the financial industry accountable. And yet, despite the overwhelming need, House Republicans want to cut the CFTC's budget, deciding this year to provide the CFTC a funding level that is 40 percent below the President's request. This funding level is in addition to sequester cuts, which have caused temporary staff layoffs as well as the agency-wide closure for 2 weeks during the Republican shutdown. Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a multifaceted effort by the Republican majority to undercut laws and regulations with which Republicans and certain special interests disagree, halting Dodd-Frank rulemaking through litigation and legislation, while simultaneously depriving our market cops of resources. The DeFazio amendment is a first step towards countering this offensive, by funding Wall Street's cop, at a minimum, with the same resources as last year. I thank my thoughtful friend from Oregon and urge adoption of this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The financial crisis of 2008 wreaked untold havoc on the U.S. economy. This disaster, which was intensified by the use of derivatives, set back hardworking Americans for generations. At the same time, it bailed out many of the Nation's largest banks. The Dodd-Frank Act sought to put our financial markets back together by, for example, creating comprehensive oversight and reforms for derivatives markets, as well as prohibitions on banks betting with taxpayers' resources. H.R. 992 would undo some of these reforms before our regulators, Wall Street's cops, have a chance to finish them, especially the Volcker Rule. Congress passed the Volcker Rule to stop banks from using customer deposits, backed by the taxpayer, for trades intended to only benefit the bank and not its customers. The rule, when finalized, will define legitimate bank activities like hedging and market making, but prevent other behavior that would leave the taxpayer and the economy hurting. In the same vein, Congress passed the Lincoln amendment, the provision that H.R. 992 would gut, to insulate the taxpayer by ``pushing out'' certain derivatives from the insured bank, while also making broad exceptions for swaps that bank customers overwhelmingly use. The Bipartisan Policy Center also recognized a connection between the Volcker Rule and the Lincoln amendment, noting that a ``well-executed Volcker Rule would simultaneously accomplish the intended goal of the Lincoln amendment.'' In case America forget, JPMorgan reminded all of us of the importance of setting limits on bank activity. In 2012, 4 years after the crisis, JPMorgan Chase's ``London Whale'' caused the bank to lose more than $6 billion in a few months. What were purportedly hedges using complicated derivatives transactions were later transformed by the bank's focus on profit into what would likely be banned under Volcker. The sense of urgency to separating the taxpayer-supported bank from the investment bank is shared across the aisle. Let me just tell you, in March of this year, Representative Jeb Hensarling said that, ``Certainly, we have to do a better job ring-fencing, fire-walling, whatever metaphor you want to use, between an insured depository institution and a noninsured investment bank.'' Yet, 3 years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, and 5 years after the financial crisis, we still do not have a ban on the very behavior that hurt our economy. Instead, H.R. 992 eliminates one taxpayer protection, the Lincoln amendment, by now allowing banks to engage in 99 percent of the swaps market without the taxpayer knowing how robust the monitoring and oversight of such activities will be. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 992 is a step backward in repairing our economy. This view is shared by the Commodity Markets Oversight Coalition, a nonpartisan alliance of American industries, businesses, consumers, and derivatives users. Similarly, the White House, the AFL-CIO, CalPERS, the Teamsters, Public Citizen, and Americans for Financial Reform all strongly oppose H.R. 992. Former Republican chairman of the FDIC, Sheila Bair, who strongly defended taxpayers during the crisis, noted immediately after the Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 992, ``Repeal of section 716 moves in the wrong direction. In an area as complex as this, I wish, I just wish Congress would at least wait for the regulators.'' I do too. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 992. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.