Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1299, amending H.R. 6644, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, sponsored by Chairman Hill and me.

Tomorrow, the House has a historic opportunity to pass an improved bipartisan housing package, negotiated in partnership with Chairman Hill and me, and with the input of many House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, our housing bill is the most comprehensive housing reform bill in a generation and is a huge step toward finally addressing the affordable housing and homelessness crises in our country.

Let me make it clear, and let me take a moment to remind everyone what is at stake or who we are trying to help. The age of a median first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. That is largely because the average cost of a single-family home has skyrocketed, and wages have not kept pace. In fact, 22 million households spend over 30 percent of their paycheck on rent, and 12 million spend over 50 percent on housing. What is most shameful is that nearly 800,000 people experience homelessness on any given night. This is unacceptable, and we must act now.

The House first passed H.R. 6644 back in February. A month later, the Senate amended our bill, stripping out numerous House provisions that would address real problems in the housing market. However, the Senate also added a poorly drafted ban on large institutional investors buying new single-family homes.

I say this not as someone who is a fan of private equity ownership of these homes, but as someone who was concerned that the Senate's drafting was unconstitutional and could lead to thousands of families and persons living with disabilities being evicted, students and servicemembers without housing options, and private equity being incentivized to use certain types of contracts with tenants that have been rife with abuses.

For this reason, I called on the Senate to join us in a conference to resolve our differences. While I am disappointed that our Senate colleagues chose not to conference with us, Chairman Hill and I just kept on going. We pressed on, making those critical improvements to restore the legislation to its intent to address the housing crisis.

To be clear, the consequences of simply passing the Senate's bill were stark. The Urban Institute concluded that 72,000 housing units would not be built as a result of the Senate's bill.

Even more alarming, the Senate's language also threatened tens of thousands of families with eviction.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on, I must say that the process to get here today has been less than ideal. That is an understatement. Chairman Hill, the Speaker, the White House, and I were making changes to this text right up until the last minute.

While I support our final agreement, we must inform our colleagues about how this bill has changed since it was posted on Friday, as they will be voting on it tomorrow, so I am going to describe those changes here.

First, the bill removes section 204, which was the Build Now Act.

Second, we added a new section 107, called Housing Supply Frameworks.

Third, section 208, the Housing Innovation Fund, now sunsets after 7 years instead of 5 years.

Fourth, we added language ensuring prevailing wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act apply to sections 102 and 106 of this bill.

Fifth, we are revising section 1001 of the bill, which relates to private equity ownership of single-family homes, by replacing our text with the Senate-based language while removing the divestment requirement, changing the definition of build-to-rent, and inserting a renter hotline that requires HUD to respond to renter complaints.

Mr. Speaker, this revised House package of needed housing reforms preserves more than 90 percent of the Senate's bill, while strengthening it by adding numerous, critical House-passed, Democratic- led housing and community banking provisions. As a result, we will be providing more relief and support to millions of families and communities all across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there is broad recognition in this Chamber of the problems in our housing markets. We need comprehensive reforms at the Federal, State, and local levels, along with a commitment by everyone to get America building housing again.

How do we do this? We do this by: creating a pilot to increase access to small-dollar mortgages, especially in rural areas; allowing housing cooperatives, a type of affordable housing option, to participate in Federal programs; creating local databases about unused, government- owned land--very important; increasing access to more family-sized affordable housing units; and adding in community bank and credit union reforms so that these small institutions can help.

These and so many other reforms in this bill are a huge first step toward finally addressing the housing crisis in this country.

Finally, the Senate had a temporary ban on central bank digital currencies, that is the CBDC. This is the status quo we have in effect today as Trump's new Fed Chair has stated that he will not issue a CBDC during his tenure. More importantly, this temporary ban is only partial and will still allow the Fed to study other forms of CBDC, like the ones that more closely parallel how currency is used in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in passing this bill. I will just say that we have learned an awful lot over a number of years about what we could do to create some real opportunities. We are now using our experiences working on housing bills to interject into how we are going to be able to get more housing for all of those who are in desperate need and to get the homeless off of our streets.

We have learned a lot. You are going to hear in this bill about how we are learning about land that is owned by cities and counties for years that they could get rid of and don't have to do it for market value, on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, even though this has been a real, real labor--I want to say of love, but it has been a real labor, maybe not of love but something that really had to be done.

I think we have finally made these meaningful steps to our Nation's housing crisis and strengthened our community banks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to please support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), the ranking member of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee and coauthor of this bill. He is someone who worked very hard to make some changes in the HOME program and that when some questions were raised about Davis-Bacon, he was right there to ensure that they were protected. I thank him so very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and an author of several provisions of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I say to Chairman Hill that in light of changes we agreed to today, I want to take a moment to make clarifications about the authority the Treasury has and should use related to the provisions banning large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes.

Under our bill, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of HUD, FHFA, and SEC, may issue regulations to minimize market disruptions and negative impacts on consumers and communities.

He and I both firmly agree that the bill allows Treasury to do this and that Treasury must use this authority to issue regulations and clarify the following things.

First, the bill was not intended to impact military housing, student housing, disability housing, or LIHTC-supported housing, as defined in our earlier May 15, 2026, posted draft of this bill.

This bill was also not intended to include or impact nonprofits or community land trusts that purchase single-family homes. These entities are not for-profit, large institutional investors.

In addition, large institutional investors are still prohibited from buying properties with land contracts, again, as defined in our earlier May 15 posted draft. These are not subject to landlord-tenant laws and are harmful to renters. Large institutional investors should only be allowed to purchase foreclosed, federally backed properties after individuals and approved nonprofits have been given the first chance to buy them through a 30-day first look period, as described in our earlier May 15 posted draft.

Given our congressional intent, Treasury should use its authority to address these concerns and to minimize market disruption and mitigate negative impacts on consumers and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Hill agrees with me on all of this, as we have discussed, and I would love for him to share his thoughts with our colleagues on this also.

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

I approve of everything Chairman Hill said, and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate Mr. Hill's support of some of the efforts that we made. Because of his background in banking and his experience, he understood exactly what we were talking about when we talked about the banks being able to do smaller loans and to provide mortgages for homes that cost a lot less than the millions of dollars.

It was because of his background and his experience that he understood right away that we want this pilot program so that we can show everybody that it is impossible to be able to have a mortgage if, in fact, you are buying a home that costs less than millions of dollars. I thank him very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo), a member of the Financial Services Committee and an author of several provisions in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2071, the Save Our Shrimpers Act. Communities in places like Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Georgia have deep, historic connections to the shrimping industry. They have raised concerns that foreign shrimping projects funded by international financial institutions, that is IFIs, are helping to dramatically increase the farmed shrimp supply, causing a glut that is driving down the price of shrimp and harming American business.

This bill would direct the United States Government to oppose financial assistance by the World Bank and other international financial institutions to projects that support foreign shrimp farming, shrimp processing, or the export of shrimp.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of American workers, including the shrimpers' communities. For that reason, I recommend that my colleagues support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4437, the Supervisory Modifications for Appropriate Risk-based Testing Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Timmons and our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Ranking Member (Mr. Foster). This is a good bipartisan bill that will support our community banks and our credit unions.

I have heard many community banks and credit unions raise concerns about their bank exams and ask how they might be streamlined. The bill provides these institutions with alternating full-scope and limited- scope opportunities.

In order to qualify for this relief, community banks and credit unions must be well capitalized and well managed. For example, that means that in order to receive this relief, they cannot be subject to an enforcement order.

The bill also clarifies that regulators retain the discretion to do additional exams if something unexpected develops related to safety and soundness and ensure that these institutions are complying with the law.

I also appreciate that Chairman Hill and the sponsors worked with me to include my amendment to require the regulators have examiners with significant experience before they conduct exams of smaller banks and credit unions.

My amendment would also minimize the number of examiners and time at the institution to carry out an onsite exam to reduce the burden on smaller institutions.

Finally, Congress must receive statistics from the regulators every year about these changes so we can understand how they are being implemented. If Members want to do something meaningful to help our community banks and credit unions, then I urge them to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that Congress can do to help our community financial institutions. This includes taking up deposit insurance reform bills like the ones that I and my committee Republicans have put forward. Increasing deposit insurance would help community banks and credit unions better compete for small businesses' deposits.

I appreciate that unlike some of the other bills Republicans have tried to advance this Congress, which were either handouts to our largest banks or rollbacks of vital consumer protections, H.R. 4437 focuses on helping our community banks and credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 3709, the Advancing the Mentor-Protege Program for Small Financial Institutions Act sponsored by our colleague and former chair of our Diversity and Inclusion Subcommittee, Representative Joyce Beatty.

She has been such a strong leader in supporting our community banks and credit unions across the country, including our Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFIs, and our Minority Depository Institutions, or MDIs.

Now, H.R. 3709 will enhance the Treasury Department's Mentor-Protege Program, which pairs larger banks with smaller ones so they have a mentor they can get advice and support from to grow and thrive.

The House first passed a similar version of Representative Beatty's bill

by voice vote in 2020 and several more times since. However, this time we are debating this bill as President Trump attacks community lending by trying to wipe out the CDFI fund.

I am so pleased Chairman Hill agreed to take up Representative Beatty's bill to continue our longstanding bipartisan tradition to support Minority Depository Institutions, or MDIs, alongside other community financial institutions like rural banks.

Let me remind Members that during Trump's first term, Congress, led by Ranking Member Velazquez and myself, we had to set aside $60 billion for MDIs and CDFIs and other community financial institutions because the biggest banks were not providing Paycheck Protection Programs-- remember, the PPP loans to the smallest businesses. MDIs and other community lenders are critical to getting those funds to small businesses quickly so they could keep their lights on during the pandemic.

Later, Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass a historic $12 billion package of capital investments and grants for CDFIs and MDIs, and those funds continue to support $130 billion in lending to underserved communities all across America. But there is more that we can do, like encouraging more partnerships to benefit rural banks and MDIs, as Mrs. Beatty's bill does.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4478, the Tailored Regulatory Updates for Supervisory Testing Act of 2025, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

This bill raises the asset threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion for well-capitalized and well-managed banks to qualify for an 18-month examination cycle instead of a 12-month exam.

Like another bill we are considering on the floor today, the SMART Act, this bill incentivizes community banks to manage their businesses well. If they do, they are able to get less frequent exams.

Congress last raised the threshold to $3 billion in 2018, which covered roughly 94 percent of banks. By raising the threshold to $6 billion today, we will update this threshold while covering roughly the same portion of banks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Community banks, including those that are community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, and minority depository institutions, or MDIs, provide access to loans for families to buy a home and for entrepreneurs to start a small business.

This bill will help ensure more of these institutions can focus on helping their customers.

I, again, urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, you see members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the floor of the House of Representatives. If you think what you see tonight is a strong voice against an attempt to disrupt, undermine, and destroy the Voting Rights Act, you ain't seen nothing yet.

This is just the beginning of what we must do, of what we have to do. Donald Trump's war on democracy did not start with redistricting, and it certainly will not end there.

From day one, he has worked to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion and programs all across corporate America and throughout the Federal Government, fueling layoffs, shrinking opportunity, and pushing Black and Brown Americans further out of positions of power and economic mobility.

After targeting diversity in jobs and opportunities and voices in the workplace, with the help of Republicans, this administration is now trying to eliminate representation in Congress itself.

Let's call this exactly what it is: a coordinated and deliberate attempt to erase the political power of Black, Brown, low-income communities, and every other underserved and underrepresented group in America.

Throughout racist redistricting schemes, backed by Republican legislatures and enabled by the Supreme Court, which recently voted to gut the Voting Rights Act, they are attempting to eliminate or weaken districts represented by Black lawmakers and potentially wipe out nearly a third of the Congressional Black Caucus.

They know they cannot defend Donald Trump's failed economic agenda, rising costs, or assaults on working families, so instead, they are trying to rig the system and silence the very communities most harmed by their reckless policies.

This is the same playbook we have seen over and over again from Donald Trump and his destructive administration. First, they attack DEI and celebrate the rollback of programs that helped open the doors for Black and Brown Americans in business, banking, and government. Then, they turn around and act surprised when unemployment skyrockets, opportunities disappear, and entire communities are pushed further behind.

Now, they are taking the same dangerous agenda one step further by trying to erase Black representation from the Halls of Congress.

Let me be very clear: This is bigger than politics. This is about whether America will continue moving forward as a democracy where every voice matters, or whether extremists will drag us backward into a time when power was reserved for only a select few.

Generations of Americans marched, bled, and died for the right to vote and the right to fair representation. Donald Trump and his allies are dishonoring that sacrifice with one of the most aggressive attacks on voting rights and Black political representation we have seen in decades.

Rest assured, I will not be silent. The Black caucus will not be silent. People of good will will not be silent while extremists attempt to dismantle the hard-fought progress that Black Americans built in this country. I will continue fighting to protect our democracy, defend the Voting Rights Act, and ensure Black communities and all underserved communities are heard, represented, and respected in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, yes, as I started this presentation this evening, I talked about the fact that the Black caucus is on the floor, but let me make sure you understand. It is not only on the floor. We will be everywhere. We will be in our churches. We will be in our universities. We will be in the Halls of Congress. We will go to the White House. We will do everything that we need to do to show not only Trump, but America in general, that we are not about to be intimidated by someone who disrespects our history and disrespects the sacrifices that have been made by our forefathers and foremothers.

We know how to fight, and we are going to fight. We are going to fight like you have never seen us fight before. We will be in the hills. We will be on the streets. We will be in the hallways. We will be in the suites everywhere. Get ready for the struggle. Get ready for the fight.

I am not afraid of the Supreme Court, not afraid of the opposite side of the aisle, not intimidated by anything or anybody. Black Americans will fight for what is right. We have made this country stronger. We have fought to make this democracy what it is today, and we are not going back. Get that right.

Mr. Speaker, the very Reverend Jesse Jackson Presidential candidate and civil rights leader was not only my close friend and confidant, he was my longtime political ally and mentor.

Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., was my idol and spiritual and political leader. He was a brilliant, gifted, and courageous civil rights leader who inspired millions. He registered millions to vote and challenged and changed the Democratic Party.

Just a little bit about his background. I want you to know that Reverend Jackson at 30 years old was one of the youngest followers of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Reverend Jackson spent his life continuing to protect and save the gains that were made during the civil rights movement.

Now, I became a dedicated and committed follower of Jesse Jackson. I worked with Reverend Jackson in both the 1984 and the 1988 Presidential campaigns. I was a top adviser on the national campaign and was appointed by Reverend Jackson to chair and lead the California campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot said about Reverend Jackson. Most people knew him from television, radio, and his public speeches, but I was a close-up witness to Reverend Jackson's brilliant campaign strategies and developments.

He used his voice and his organizing skills to create the beautiful Rainbow

PUSH Coalition, long before there was any understanding or appreciation for diversity, equity, and inclusion. For all intents and purposes, Reverend Jackson made sure that the campaign that he headed included Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Whites, women, LGBTQ, organized labor, and others. He brought together pastors, preachers, and multifaith leaders from all over the country. I recall his work and his outreach to small farmers in rural areas.

Jesse Jackson went into areas in rural America where those who did not know him hated him and thought, for some reason, that he could be of no use to them. Once he got into those communities and started to work with the rural farmers, many of them were having their farms foreclosed on at that time, and Reverend Jackson learned a lot about how to talk with bankers about loan modifications so that those farmers could stay in business. Even today, there are farmers and their families who remember what Reverend Jackson did for them in these rural communities. It was an amazing kind of development and association that he made.

He was responsible for cracking open the doors of America's corporate community and those in Silicon Valley. Reverend Jackson was also an international ambassador for peace. He used his tremendous influence to champion human rights.

I worked with him in the Free South Africa movement, where he helped free Nelson Mandela and bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. We had a wonderful experience of attending the inauguration when Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa.

Of course, Reverend Jackson helped to secure the release of U.S. hostages all around the world. The one that stands out to me is when he went to Syria and negotiated the release of U.S. Navy Lieutenant Robert Goodman, Jr.

Reverend Jackson was an extraordinary human being and a true human rights advocate. I can recall when we went to public housing projects. In Los Angeles, he was at Nickerson Gardens housing projects, where the gangbangers and others met him for the first time.

When he went to Nickerson Gardens, they were not believers. They didn't know an awful lot, and so they challenged him to stay overnight in public housing at Nickerson Gardens, and he did.

Right now, when you go to Nickerson Gardens, some of those older members who remembered him from when he came to Nickerson Gardens will point to the unit where Reverend Jackson slept in Nickerson Gardens housing project, but that is not enough.

You saw Congressman Cleo Fields here tonight. I want you to know that when Katrina happened, Reverend Jackson organized me and some others. We went to New Orleans, where Cleo Fields rented a bus.

We got on that bus, and we traveled all over New Orleans. Why did we do that? It was because there were people who had been left on rooftops with no way to get down, and some of them were helped down by Reverend Jackson, Cleo Fields, and myself. Many of them had been dropped along the wayside, hoping that somebody would come and pick them up.

I can recall when we went to the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, where there were people who were sitting there who had been dropped off because they had been helped to get off of a roof, but no one could help them any further. We put them in that bus, and we rode through all of New Orleans, particularly in the areas around Alexandria and other cities in the Louisiana area.

We took them to State houses. We took them to rescue places. We took them to wherever we could find a place for them to sleep.

Reverend Jackson was a huge political individual at that time, recognized all over the world for his advocacy for the least of these, helping to get people to understand that everybody was special and that everybody was important. He taught that message through his brilliant way of connecting: ``I am somebody.'' He made little young boys and girls, who really didn't think they were somebody, think, now that they met Reverend Jesse Jackson, that they were somebody.

I want you to know that his humanitarianism was the likes of which I have never seen before. He truly cared about people. The Reverend Jesse Jackson was a religious man, and he prayed before meetings. He prayed after meetings. Even though, at the time that I started working with him, I did not know a lot about the power of prayer, but I learned that being on the road with him and how he cared about everybody, how he cared about the young and the old and the veterans and the imprisoned, on and on and on.

He was truly an unusual human being, married to an unusual woman. His wife was not only, in her own right, a civil rights activist and leader, but she supported him in every way that she possibly could. The two of them raised five brilliant children, one of which who served in this House. That was Jesse Jackson, Jr. Today, we have the brilliant, young Jonathan Jackson who is serving.

They come with the spirit of their daddy. I lived with the spirit of Reverend Jesse Jackson. It is in me, and so you can call it whatever you want to call it. You can call it progressive. You can call it liberal. You can call it whatever you want. In the final analysis, it is Reverend Jesse Jackson who changed so many lives, who helped people to understand that they did not stand alone, that he was there for them, speaking for them.

Whether he was talking to kings and queens, or he was talking to the man on the block, we could count on Reverend Jesse Jackson. In the final analysis, Reverend Jackson more than earned his place in history. Rightfully so, his work will never be forgotten and will be taught in communities all over the world in places low and high, in our schools and universities.

I will live the rest of my life with the memories that I will cherish for the time, the effort, and the phenomenal work that I experienced with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Jr., Presidential candidate and civil rights leader.

I am thankful for the opportunity to be here this evening, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this moment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am especially concerned about Iran's stockpile of enhanced uranium, which could be used at any time. I know that the President has said that the nuclear capability of Iran had been obliterated.

However, prior to the first Trump administration, the U.S. was able to monitor the status of Iran's uranium under an agreement called the ``Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,'' the JCPOA. The U.S. negotiated this agreement with Iran in 2015, but Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Now, we have no way to track the status of Iran's dangerous uranium stockpile. This war must be stopped.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 5616, the $2.50 for America's 250th Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

This legislation directs the Treasury Secretary to mint and issue a $2.50 collectible coin to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence later this year.

Under this bill, the Treasury would also conduct a study to evaluate minting and issuing a separate $2.50 coin for wide circulation in the United States.

For starters, I am glad this legislation now considers the cost- effectiveness of a potential $2.50 circulating coin. This is important, especially as President Trump's abrupt decision to stop production of the penny last year, without any meaningful plan, created problems that retailers, banks, and consumers are still dealing with today. This is the mess we are now forced to clean up.

Additionally, to be clear, I was deeply concerned by the language in the introduced version of this legislation, which may have been interpreted by the Treasury Secretary to allow him to select a new design for a $2.50 coin.

We are already witnessing how Secretary Bessent has exploited loopholes and ignored existing laws, resulting in the Treasury minting a $1 coin bearing Trump's image. The Treasury's decision to put Donald Trump's face, a living President, on our currency is illegal and reminiscent of a monarchy, which 250 years ago our country firmly rejected. I was happy to see that this bill makes it explicit that Trump's face cannot be on this collectible coin.

Furthermore, as we speak of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, we would be horribly remiss not to recognize the violence taking place in this country.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has established a legacy of violence and cruelty. Trump's administration has empowered and unleashed brutal attacks against Latino, Black, and countless other communities. They have locked up children and killed innocent people without fear of consequences, and they celebrate this cruelty and unapologetically mock the victims.

Therefore, as we attempt to commemorate the founding principles of this country, we must not turn a blind eye to the very real destruction that is taking place right here, right now.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), who has put a lot of work into this as she serves as the co-chair of the America 250 Caucus and serves on the Semiquincentennial Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives us an opportunity to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the ideals and founding principles of our country, like the rule of law and separation of powers. Individual freedom, dignity, and equality are being ruthlessly undermined today by this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Chamber's commitment to America's founding principles is not merely symbolic, somewhat like the coin, but will be represented in our commitment to protect these principles and exercise our responsibilities to democracy in the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank Mrs. Watson Coleman for all of the work that she has put in on America250 Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6644, the Housing for the 21st Century Act, sponsored by myself and, of course, by Representatives Hill, Cleaver, and Flood.

Our housing and homelessness crisis has reached a breaking point, as millions of Americans each night struggle to find a decent, stable, and affordable place to live. The struggle has real faces of our children's teachers, working mothers, veterans, and, of course, children from all over the country. The struggle is in our rural towns, urban areas, and suburban neighborhoods across America.

On any given night, 800,000 people are experiencing homelessness in the United States of America. Rents nationwide have soared by 47 percent, and home prices have skyrocketed 57 percent. Incomes haven't kept pace with these increases, which means housing eats up more and more of a family's paycheck.

As the lead Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, it has been my mission to fight to end this homelessness and housing crisis. The Housing for the 21st Century Act is a critical first step in that mission.

Passed in Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, H.R. 6644 sets the stage for building and preserving more affordable homes in our neighborhood. It makes many long overdue improvements to housing programs, expands local development opportunities, and broadens access to homeownership.

H.R. 6644 also includes a dozen bipartisan provisions to help small banks like community development financial institutions, the CDFIs, and minority depository institutions, the MDIs. It helps meet the housing and other needs of our constituents.

The bill also addresses concerns from the 2023 banking crisis that will now promote a safe, sound, and competitive banking system, one that doesn't threaten our housing markets or our economy.

This package represents a historical, bipartisan agreement. I am proud that Mr. Hill and I, along with Mr. Flood and Mr. Cleaver, have been able to work together to prioritize the housing needs of millions of Americans and advance this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to highlight House and committee Democrats who worked tirelessly with me on this package. H.R. 6644 includes 25 provisions that come directly from bills championed and introduced by House Democrats and another 16 provisions that House Democrats co-led.

I am excited that it includes my bill, H.R. 5077, which would allow cities to use CDBG funds toward affordable housing construction.

It also includes H.R. 6774, which would finally create a pilot program at the Federal Housing Administration to offer small-dollar mortgages.

It includes my bill, H.R. 6773, which directs cities across America to finally publish a database of their unused land so that developers may be able to bid on it and build more housing.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it includes my bill, H.R. 4544, to encourage the formation of new banks including CDFIs and MDIs so that borrowers will have more options when they want to buy a home.

While we come today to pass this initial bill, let me be clear that much more work is needed. We can't pass this bill, call it a night, and then claim that this affordable housing and homelessness crisis is over. A significant problem warrants a significant response, which means that we need significant Federal investments to solve this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this administration is watching today and learns something about true bipartisanship and getting things done for the American people. Our bill is the type of bipartisan work that is needed to tackle the crisis facing Americans. Among meaningless tweets, empty promises, costly tariffs, and ridiculous policies like the 50- year mortgage, while this affordability crisis rages on, Congress can act tonight to support Americans who are looking for real housing solutions.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to introduce a resolution recognizing the 90th anniversary of the National Council of Negro Women, one of the most enduring and consequential organizations in the history of our country.

Ninety years ago, the incomparable Mary McLeod Bethune founded the National Council of Negro Women with a singular purpose: to unite Black women's organizations and strengthen our collective power to make a better world. She believed deeply in the strength of organized womanhood and the necessity of Black women's leadership in shaping the future of this Nation.

For generations, NCNW has carried that mission forward. It has stood at the forefront of movements for justice, equality, economic empowerment, and educational opportunity. It has been a training ground for advocates, a safe harbor for families, and a beacon of civic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to speak of NCNW without honoring the extraordinary legacy of my dear friend, Dr. Dorothy Irene Height. For 42 years, Dr. Height served as President of NCNW and transformed it into a national powerhouse for civil and human rights. She was an advisor to presidents, a strategist for the movement, and a fierce defender of Black women's dignity and advancement.

Dr. Height's vision gave birth to programs that continue to shape our communities today--most notably the Black Family Reunion, a national celebration of culture, unity, and intergenerational strength. This gathering has helped reinforce the bonds that hold families together and affirm the values that empower us to overcome the challenges Black people face in America.

Today, under the leadership of Rev. Shavon Arline-Bradley, NCNW continues to grow its reach and impact. Its programs promote health equity, economic mobility, STEM education for girls, and community wellness. Its membership now represents more than two million women, spanning hundreds of community and collegiate sections and more than 330 affiliate organizations.

And for decades, its headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue has stood as a symbol of NCNW's enduring place in the civic landscape of Washington, D.C. The only Black-owned building on this historic avenue in our Nation's capital, it is a center of excellence, and a national treasure.

Mr. Speaker, as NCNW marks 90 years of service, it is important that this Congress acknowledge its contributions to the Nation, honor the women who built its legacy, and celebrate the generations who continue to carry its mission forward.

With this resolution, we recognize NCNW's historic work, its transformative leadership, and its unwavering commitment to strengthening Black families and communities. We honor the legacies of Mary McLeod Bethune and Dr. Dorothy Height, and we express our deep gratitude to Rev. Shavon Arline-Bradley and the millions of women who make NCNW a force for good in our country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and in celebrating the National Council of Negro Women on its 90th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3383, the INVEST Act, which is an end-of-year holiday gift to Wall Street, paid for by the hard-earned savings of teachers, nurses, seniors, and other hardworking Americans.

While several of the provisions in the INVEST Act could support capital formation, the bill contains three poison pill provisions that make voting for the overall bill untenable. These provisions will raise costs and increase fees for people all across America.

At a time when the President's disastrous tariff policies are causing many Americans to struggle just to pay the bills, the INVEST Act would reduce Federal investor protections, jeopardizing the retirement savings of millions of regular, hardworking Americans, but it didn't have to be this way.

I worked closely with the Capital Markets Subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Wagner, and the full committee chairman, Mr. Hill, just to get to ``yes'' on this bill, and 19 of the provisions in this bill would pass overwhelmingly through this House.

Unfortunately, Republicans could not resist the demands of their Wall Street, and they threw in three poison pills at the last minute that would make Wall Street richer and retirement more unaffordable.

Mr. Chair, I will tell you about these poison pill provisions and what they will do.

The first section, 202, would remove the 403(b) retirement plans relied on by millions of teachers, nurses, and nonprofit workers from the protections and oversight of the Federal securities laws. This massive $1 trillion deregulation of 403(b) plans would allow Wall Street middlemen and unlicensed, so-called retirement consultants to free themselves of SEC's rules to always keep the planholders' best interests in mind.

It is not surprising that, while those Wall Street middlemen are heavily lobbying this bill, the groups and unions representing the teachers, nurses, and other workers who would be affected strongly oppose. The National Education Association, representing over 3 million educators all across the country; the American Federation of Teachers, representing over 1.5 million teachers and healthcare professionals; National Nurses United, representing over 200,000 registered nurses; and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, representing 1.3 million public service workers, all oppose this bill.

Mr. Chair, that is not all. Let's look at the second poison pill, section 205.

This provision will make electronic delivery of financial documents the default for all investors, including seniors, even though the majority of seniors prefer and rely on paper delivery. The bill would automatically switch investors from the preferred paper delivery to electronic delivery, even if the investor has recently declined to receive statements.

Millions of seniors still don't have access to reliable internet or an email account. As a result of this provision, they would now be in the dark about their finances and investments. This means that they would be less likely to notice junk fees and unnecessary trades executed by their financial professional.

Not surprisingly, the AARP, representing 110 million Americans, strongly opposed this provision when it was considered in the committee during this Congress.

Finally, the third poison pill, section 206, allows Wall Street to vastly increase the amount of risky, opaque private assets they sell to Main Street investors. It does so by allowing what is known as closed- end funds, which is similar to mutual funds and used by many everyday investors to invest up to 100 percent of their assets in shares of private equity and venture capital funds and directly into the unregistered shares of private companies.

Current law limits these kinds of private assets to only 15 percent of a fund's total assets. This is because private assets are very different from the

publicly traded stocks and bonds that most folks are used to investing in.

Unlike publicly traded stocks, private assets are not registered with the SEC, meaning Wall Street's cop on the block and all of the ensuing protections that come from its oversight are not in place. They are also harder to value, contain far fewer disclosures around risk, and are very hard for investors to get their money back due to withdrawal limits and long lockup periods.

For these reasons, our securities laws have guardrails on Wall Street so that they don't peddle junky assets to investors who can't understand the financial risks. These various provisions and the bill as a whole are opposed by the groups who are fighting on behalf of everyday Americans, including, again, the AFL-CIO; American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Financial Reform; Public Citizen; the Service Employees International Union; Communication Workers of America; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; National Education Association; National Nurses United; and the United Auto Workers.

The State securities regulators also came out against the bill just this morning. No one cares more about capital formation than our State governments, but they also care that deregulation does not lead to harming investors and small businesses.

Mr. Chair, we support capital formation. We tried so hard to get an agreement, and we thought we had one because of the provisions that we could be bipartisan on because we, too, support capital formation. What we don't support is these poison pills that will just do the kind of deregulation that would put so many hardworking people at risk. As I mentioned, the teachers and the nurses and all of the other labor unions, et cetera, are really, really worried that these poison pills will do so much harm that we had to plea but walk away from what we thought we could get as a bipartisan operation because of the poison pills at the last minute.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Missouri has no further speakers.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Now, this so-called e-delivery provision makes electronic delivery the default communication method for all investors, whether they like it or not.

AARP research indicates that a majority of American investors, 80 percent of which are 55 years of age or older, prefer to receive their documents in paper. However, under this provision, investors who prefer to receive information about their investments by paper will need to opt in to paper delivery by computer even if they previously opted for paper statements.

This is why the e-delivery provision is opposed by the AARP and most major unions and investor protection organizations, including, again: Americans for Financial Reform; American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America, CWA; Consumer Federation of America, CFA; National Education Association, NEA; the American Federation of Teachers, AFT; National Nurses United, NNU; Public Citizen; Service Employees International Union, SEIU; The Academy of Financial Education, AFE; United Auto Workers, UAW; the North American Securities Administrators Association, NASAA; and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME.

Now, I have two big problems with this provision. Number one: Investors who previously told their adviser that they had to have paper statements should still be able to receive them because investors should be the ones in charge of how they monitor their own money.

Number two: Any savings advisers earn because they are not sending paper notices should be refunded to the investor as a credit on their statement. Financial advisers should not be able to make a profit by providing fewer services to their investors, especially a service that most investors want and demand.

However, Republicans flatly refuse to include either provision, demonstrating what this section really is: a holiday gift to Wall Street.

Financial firms will save potentially billions of dollars by making it harder for American investors to access information about their own accounts.

For these reasons, I strongly encourage you to vote against H.R. 3383.

Let me just say to the Members of this House of Representatives that if, in fact, we were working on a bipartisan agreement on this INVEST Act and we found that we could agree on maybe 19 out of 22, that they would literally walk away from the negotiations. They would walk away from our chance to be bipartisan rather than have a bill that would actually be a bill that we all want, understanding what our businesses need for capital improvement, et cetera, because Wall Street wants these three poison pills. They would walk away from all the work that we have done. It does not make good sense.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, we can't vote for it. We cannot vote for it with these poison pills. They are too harmful.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, Republicans claim that section 202 purports to modernize retirement options for nurses, teachers, and nonprofit workers. Let me be clear: It does not.

In reality, this provision opens these workers' retirement accounts called 403(b) plans to complex, high-fee products like collective investment trusts and variable annuities. It also removes these plans from the protections and oversight of our Federal securities laws.

I cannot imagine why we would want to make it more difficult and dangerous for some of the most valuable members of our community to save for retirement, but that is exactly what section 202 does. We did not debate this section. We did not have a hearing on it. No one has asked questions about it.

I have to wonder, why is it here? Is it because those whose savings are in 403(b) plans, the teachers and nurses, asked for it? No, they did not. They do not support this provision. In fact, this section is opposed by major unions and investor protection groups.

Let me make sure that it is very well understood who is opposing these poison pills: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America, CWA; Consumer Federation of America, CFA; National Education Association, NEA; American Federation of Teachers, AFT; National Nurses United, NNU; Public Citizen; Service Employees International Union, SEIU; The Academy of Financial Education, AFE; the United Auto Workers, UAW; North American Securities Administrators Association, NASAA; and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME.

To be clear, this provision is in this bill because Wall Street asked for it. They want to be able to spend the retirement savings of public employees on these most expensive, riskier assets so they can get richer.

Voting for this bill means choosing Wall Street over the interests of the American people, and I cannot imagine doing that. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill with these poison pills in it that I have described over and over again.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have heard a lot from Republicans about how the INVEST Act will expand access to capital and increase investor opportunity. The inclusion of three poison pills in this bill shows they are not serious about protecting the investors. They care more about funneling their money to Wall Street.

If the Republicans are serious about increasing investment in small business and expanding opportunities for investors to participate in new markets, we could have passed a clean bill with nearly unanimous support. Instead, the Republicans, unable to say ``no'' to Wall Street, have jammed in three bills that hurt workers and those saving for a dignified retirement.

Don't just take my word for it. These provisions are opposed by the actual people who would be harmed. Again, these are teachers, nurses, seniors, and others.

The bill is opposed by the AFL-CIO; the American Federation of Teachers; the Americans for Financial Reform; Public Citizen; Service Employees International Union; Communications Workers of America Union; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; National Education Association; National Nurses United; and the United Auto Workers.

These unions represent over 20 million Americans. Other organizations are fighting for the interests of everyday Americans, and so should everyone in this Chamber.

Mr. Chair, let me close by saying, oftentimes we hear from both sides of the aisle how much they care about our seniors and how they want to do so much for our seniors. Here they have the opportunity to resist a poison pill that would absolutely be opposed to what seniors have said they want and they don't want.

I want Members of this Chamber to ask their grandmothers and their great-grandmothers and others who are investors, who have spent their time working and earning and making sure that they have retirement, et cetera: Do they want to receive their information on the internet or on a computer they don't have or they don't use or they haven't learned how to use?

Would my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle simply try and understand why getting paper information about their investments is what seniors want?

If they want to support seniors, why would they allow Wall Street to stop sending the paper information and make billions of dollars and not even talk about making them spend the billions of dollars on seniors in some way? I don't get it.

Mr. Chair, I am raising the question. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should raise the question. If they want to help seniors, this poison pill does not help them in any way. It denies them the opportunity to understand what is happening to their investments on paper that they can read, because they don't have access to or don't engage with the digital platform offered to all of us. They cannot engage because they are not ready to.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I oppose Mr. Self's amendment to strike section 307 of the INVEST Act.

Section 307 is identical to H.R. 3357 sponsored by guess who? It is sponsored by Mr. Meeks.

It closes gaps in the disclosures made to investors where there are multi-class government structures. Companies that use these structures offer different share classes, such classes having different rights like voting rights. These structures can allow corporate insiders to retain an outsize amount of voting power relative to their shares.

For instance, Mark Zuckerberg has been able to consolidate control over Facebook, and now Meta, primarily due to the dual-class share structure that he established. This structure allows him and a small group of insiders to hold class B shares which have 10 times the voting power of the class A shares sold on the open market.

As a result, Zuckerberg has maintained nearly 60 percent of the voting power in Facebook, even though his shares account for only about 18 percent of shares.

Mr. Meeks' provision was recommended by the SEC's Investors Advisory Committee and passed out of committee with unanimous support, and it has also passed both this Congress and the prior two nearly unanimously.

Investors should have the clearest information available to make the best decision for themselves, but Mr. Self's amendment would deny them that.

Mr. Chair, I therefore encourage all Members to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) to speak in opposition to Mr. Self's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentlewoman from Missouri and have enjoyed working with her, but she tends not only to agree with me on this amendment but she feels very strongly about it. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment so that investors have the basic information they need about a company's governing structure to make the best investment decisions for themselves.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose Mr. Self's amendment to limit the ability of the SEC to carry out its mandate in section 105.

Section 105, which is identical to H.R. 4449, sponsored by Mr. Vicente Gonzalez and Mr. Garbarino, directs the SEC to promote and protect small businesses by creating a small business office within each rulemaking division of the SEC, ensuring that the SEC has small business experts across the agency.

Mr. Gonzalez' provision will ensure that the SEC rules are tailored to the needs of small businesses.

Mr. Self's amendment makes this provision impossible to implement by blocking the SEC from hiring any new employees to carry out the work.

At a time when small businesses are struggling to stay afloat due to the impacts of Trump's harmful tariffs and disastrous economic policies, it is crucial that small businesses are represented through every step of the regulatory process.

If we are serious about helping small businesses, we must make sure our regulators have the expertise needed to support them. I, therefore, encourage all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, with costs soaring and small businesses struggling to weather the impacts of the Trump tariffs and his administration's war on small businesses, it is crucial that we do what we can to make sure government is working for them, not against them.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Garcia of Texas, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment originally offered by my colleague, Representative Garcia. Ms. Garcia's amendment would make law an important requirement that was already carefully considered and made final by FinCEN, but which has been delayed potentially indefinitely under this administration. Her amendment requires foreign hedge funds to put in place anti-money laundering policies that will ensure the safety of our markets and prevent bad actors from using these funds to launder criminal profits.

During a time when our markets are seeing unprecedented fraud and abuse, we should not wait to increase AML protections. We should not wait for FinCEN. We should do what we can to strengthen our markets now.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close. Are you indicating that I do not have the right to close?

I have the right to close?

Mr. Chair, if I don't have the right to close, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all Members to vote ``yes'' on Ms. Garcia's amendment to strengthen the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements for foreign investment advisers. This reasonable and well-considered provision will ensure increased safety for our markets from abuse by terrorists, prohibited entities, and other bad actors abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3383 seeks to provide small businesses with more opportunities to access capital. A key avenue for most small companies to raise money is by seeking investments from a small number of accredited investors.

These offerings, made under SEC regulation D, are exempt from registration with the SEC. However, these companies are required to file basic disclosures with the SEC on Form D, which is available to the public. The information provided on Form D is often bare bones, incomplete, or false.

This makes it difficult for investors to understand the parameters of an exempt offering. What is worse, many bad actors located in the United States and all around the world are using reg D to misrepresent that they are SEC compliant, using false information on Form D and posting it to the SEC's public database, EDGAR. These fraudsters tell unsuspecting U.S. investors that they are registered with the SEC.

We must stop these bad actors from using Form D to take hard-earned money out of Americans' savings and putting it into the hands of criminals.

My amendment aims to fix this problem by requiring additional information about the identity of the company and the scope of its offering prior to making any sales. My amendment also requires a company to update Form D when there is a mistake or material change in the information and when the offering is complete.

Furthermore, to prevent fraud, the amendment requires Form D filers to provide additional verification of their identity: who they are, such as registrations with the State Secretary of State, and to certify that the information in the Form D is accurate.

Mr. Chairman, providing false information on Form D would expose the filer to criminal penalties. Form D reforms are a key priority for our States' securities regulators. They argue that many bad actors are harming legitimate businesses needing to raise capital under SEC's regulation D and that Form D reforms would lead to more capital formation.

Mr. Chair, this is simple. It is very clear. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I encourage all Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to strengthen information for people investing in private markets. As the opportunities to invest in private companies grow, in particular through measures promoted in this bill, we must take steps to ensure that investors are provided with accurate and complete information about what they are investing in.

These are simple, commonsense protections that will make a big difference in ensuring accountability for exempt offerings and preventing the proliferation of fraud around form D filings.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would make junk fees illegal and require investment firms to clearly disclose the other fees they charge.

For far too long, Wall Street has been charging junk fees that sap the investment returns of hardworking Americans and make it harder to save for retirement.

This amendment makes clear that investment firms, be they an investment company, an investment adviser, or a broker-dealer, cannot charge any fees that are either not clearly disclosed to investors in advance or exceed the value of the services provided. These could include dubious fees like account closure fees, excessive markups, and undisclosed compensation or sales arrangements, inactivity fees, and so-called regulatory compliance fees.

In addition to outright banning junk fees, this amendment requires investment firms to clearly disclose to their customers in advance any fees that they charge that customer.

Investors should not face any surprises when it comes to the cost of investing their savings. Making sure that investors clearly know the risk and costs of choosing an investment firm or product should receive unanimous support from all Members of this body.

Finally, this amendment would bring unprecedented transparency to how investment firms profit from the fees they charge investors. These firms would be required to annually report to the SEC the total profit earned from fees as a percentage of assets under management.

The SEC would publish this information on a public database similar to a broker check along with a visual that shows whether these fees are high, low, or average when compared with their peer firms.

By making this data public, American investors would be able to know how the fees charged by their investment firm compare to others and would also create market pressure on firms to make savings for the future more affordable for Americans.

I strongly, strongly encourage all Members to support this amendment because this amendment is a commonsense solution that protects investors and brings accountability to the industry.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' in support of my amendment to prohibit junk fees and make all other fees more transparent to investors.

My amendment will make sure that hardworking Americans are safe from undisclosed or unreasonable fees. It will require advanced notice on fees before they are charged to an investor and will make public the amount that financial firms earn from fees.

I am sure you can agree that every American should have a right to know what they are paying for, and that is why I am asking for a vote on this amendment.

It has been acknowledged by the supporters that they are so pleased for this debate that we are having this evening. They have indicated it is long past due that consumers have this kind of advocacy and that consumers have this kind of support from the Members of Congress who understand the rip-offs and the fraud and the disrespect that they have received for far too long.

This amendment is supported by all of those organized unions and advocacy groups that I have spoken about earlier this evening. They all support this amendment as they support the bill that we have been working so hard for.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 225, the HUD Transparency Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative De La Cruz.

Oversight is a core function of the Financial Services Committee. Inspectors general also play a critical role in providing transparency about the functions of government, as well as holding government officials accountable.

They are able to do this because they are independent of the officials they oversee, and until recently, were only removed for cause.

However, since taking office, President Trump has fired over 20 IGs across the government. The majority of these IG firings took place in the first week President Trump took office and violated lawful removal procedures as they came with no warning or rationale.

In fact, the Trump administration has kept more than three in four presidentially appointed inspector general positions vacant and without Senate-confirmed leadership.

These actions not only silence future IGs but leave the public less informed about critical activities happening across agencies.

Dangerously, Trump's actions, combined with Republican House leadership who are unwilling to investigate anything Trump's team does, enable the Trump administration to be entirely unaccountable.

Notably, the HUD Inspector General this bill would require to testify before our committee was one of the people Trump arbitrarily fired earlier this year.

Since that firing, the acting HUD IG has been replaced again, and there is no one being considered by the Senate for confirmation. As a result, no one in this Chamber knows when our committee will be able to receive this testimony.

That said, and while I support this bill, this debate ignores the real and urgent challenges facing HUD and our housing market, and how the President and his administration are actively taking steps to undermine efforts to address the affordable housing crisis.

For example, where is the legislation from our Republican colleagues to stop Trump's plan to gut existing permanent supportive housing that could force more than 170,000 people back on the streets? Twenty States and D.C. have already sued HUD citing the plan as chaotic and unlawful.

Mr. Speaker, where are their investigations into the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, who is weaponizing the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for politically motivated witch hunts and trying to lock new home buyers into 50-year mortgages?

If Republicans wanted to lower housing costs, why aren't they calling to exempt materials like lumber from Trump's tariffs or why aren't we negotiating the ROAD to Housing Act so that it can be included in NDAA and quickly passed into law?

Mr. Speaker, the invitation to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is open. Join us in finally taking steps to address the rising costs of housing. The American public wants us to lower their bills, and Democrats have numerous ideas about how to do that. Join us in ensuring that the HUD inspector general has the independence to do their job without fear of retaliation when they uncover corruption or abuse of power.

We will join Republicans in passing this bill today, but we need to finally get to work to deliver real change for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, HUD plays a vital role in providing safe and affordable housing to families all across the United States. Families depend on HUD's programs to keep a roof over their heads.

H.R. 225 would allow Congress and the public to hear directly from an independent oversight authority, provided one is ever confirmed, and offer more transparency into the functions and operations of HUD, especially at a time when Trump's appointees are abusing their power.

I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, given the human rights violations committed by the Burmese leadership, we must ensure that no new funds are disbursed to the government. In line with longstanding U.S. policy, America should urge multilateral institutions like the World Bank to avoid rewarding those who breach international laws and the norms that they should be respecting.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.