Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4763, which I am calling the not fit for purpose act.

This bill would deregulate a substantial portion of the crypto industry, taking them out of the purview of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. It would allow them to operate either under a lighter touch regulatory regime under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or in what I have called a regulatory no-man's-land, with no primary regulator and virtually no regulations. For crypto that would remain under the SEC's purview, this bill still provides major exemptions from critical securities laws.

If this wasn't bad enough, this bill is not just about crypto. Language was added to the bill after it was marked up by the committees of jurisdiction that would allow even some traditional securities to also exist in this regulatory no-man's-land.

Specifically, I am referring to title II of the bill that defines the term ``investment contract asset.'' Assets that fall under this definition are explicitly deemed not to be securities and, therefore, not under the SEC's purview, but the bill doesn't provide an alternative legal framework for these assets.

This represents an extreme MAGA, libertarian approach where companies can operate without regulatory scrutiny, and consumers and investors are on their own in detecting and avoiding fraudulent schemes.

While Republican defenders of this bill have argued that this definition of investment contract asset is limited to digital assets under the bill, this is disputed by legal experts and SEC Chair Gary Gensler himself, who confirmed in a recent statement regarding this bill that it would have a broader impact on traditional securities.

Interestingly, I didn't hear any arguments from the Republicans at the Rules Committee hearing disputing that this would, in fact, be a regulatory no-man's-land, even if they insist it is just for crypto.

Even for crypto that would be transferred over to the CFTC, I have serious concerns about the loss of protections for consumers and investors. The CFTC is generally designed to deal with sophisticated institutional investors and traders. It doesn't have the same kind of protections that the SEC has for retail investors and consumers.

Under all three avenues provided for crypto under this bill: The CFTC's lighter touch regulatory regime, SEC's weaker regulatory regime for restricted digital assets, or the regulatory no-man's-land, these are just a few examples of protections that would be stripped away: the right of an investor to sue, gone; protections against conflicts of interest, gone; the right to critical disclosures that help investors make informed choices, gone; and enforcement by States against fraud; and enforcement by the SEC for all of the above protections, including antifraud.

H.R. 4763 would also upend more than 170 enforcement cases the SEC has brought related to crypto violations. These actions have been brought by both Democratic and Republican administrations to protect investors against crypto bad actors.

The SEC is the Federal agency on the front lines of enforcing our existing securities laws on crypto firms that have willfully chosen to ignore the law and defrauded consumers out of billions of dollars with these get-rich-quick schemes. Giving this industry a free pass to avoid most all regulations cannot be the answer to the serious concerns that Members have raised about crypto fraud.

I have seen many efforts by Republicans, acting at the behest of the industry to pass deregulatory regulation, but this is perhaps the worst, most harmful proposal I have seen in a long time. This bill would deregulate crypto and certain traditional securities to the extent that I and other experts have expressed serious concerns about this bill causing a potential market crash and recession.

I am also reminded of how, over the warnings of regulators, Congress moved to deregulate the over-the-counter derivatives. Remember the derivatives market back in 2000? The resulting financial crisis triggered the implosion of financial institutions, a wave of foreclosures, and trillions of dollars in lost wealth.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues not to forget. They should not repeat history with this bill.

The Biden administration has released a Statement of Administration Policy opposing this bill. The bill is also opposed by a long list of investors and consumer advocates, State securities administrators concerned about State preemption, labor organizations worried about the retirement funds of their members, environmental groups concerned about the undisclosed risk of crypto mining, civic organizations worried about the undue influence of the financial and crypto industry over Congress' actions, academics, legal experts, and technologists.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up and to not be afraid of Big Crypto, to stand up for everyday investors and consumers.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

It is no mystery why the crypto industry prefers to be regulated by the CFTC rather than the SEC. Let's start with the substantial differences in funding and staff for the CFTC compared to SEC.

In 2023, the CFTC employed roughly 680 full-time employees with an annual budget of $365 million. Wow. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, employed over 4,500 employees and had a budget of over $2 billion.

Even with the limited funding provided to the CFTC under this bill, which is capped at $40 million and set to expire after 4 years, the CFTC's funding would be only one-fifth of the SEC's budget. Mr. Chair, $40 billion is not sufficient to oversee more than 16,000 cryptocurrencies.

Let's not forget that the same Republicans who are bringing this bill to the floor are the same ones who proposed cutting CFTC's budget last year. Moreover, the CFTC is designed to deal mostly with sophisticated institutional investors and traders rather than retail investors and consumers. Therefore, the CFTC does not have the same level of protections for retail investors and consumers.

Mr. Chair, I would simply say that we should look at this example. The CFTC has no mandate like the SEC that requires entities to act in the best interests of the investors or to put their clients' interests first. This is just another reason why I am very concerned about the light-touch regulatory regime under the CFTC.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy.

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following statements:

The Statement of Administration Policy from the Biden administration opposing this bill;

The statement from SEC Chair Gensler raising serious concerns about this bill;

A letter from the Treasury Department to me, dated July 20, 2023, expressing serious concerns about this bill;

A letter from the North American Securities Administrators Association opposing this bill; and

A letter from 48 stakeholders opposing this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4763--Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century

Act--Rep. Thompson, R-PA, and 11 cosponsors

The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 4763, which

would affect the regulatory structure for digital assets in

the United States. The Administration is eager to work with

Congress to ensure a comprehensive and balanced regulatory

framework for digital assets, building on existing

authorities, which will promote the responsible development

of digital assets and payment innovation and help reinforce

United States leadership in the global financial system. H.R.

4763 in its current form lacks sufficient protections for

consumers and investors who engage in certain digital asset

transactions. The Administration looks forward to continued

collaboration with Congress on developing legislation for

digital assets that includes adequate guardrails for

consumers and investors while creating the conditions needed

for innovation, and further time will be needed for such

collaboration.

Mr. Chair, I also include an excerpt from Coinbase's Form S-1 filing acknowledging the risk that Coinbase could be found to be illegally acting outside of securities laws, excerpts from the SEC's complaint against Coinbase alleging that Coinbase was illegally acting outside of securities laws; and a summary of, and key excerpt from, the decision in the case of SEC v. Coinbase, finding that Coinbase was indeed acting illegally by failing to comply with existing laws.

SEC v. Coinbase

Excerpt from Coinbase S-1 Filing on ``Risk Factors''

As indicated in the above complaint, in its Form S-1 filing

with the SEC Coinbase acknowledged the risks that the crypto

assets it makes available on its platform could be deemed

securities, and therefore Coinbase could be found to be

engaging in unregistered brokerage, exchange, and/or

clearing-agency activity:

``A particular crypto asset's status as a ``security'' in

any relevant jurisdiction is subject to a high degree of

uncertainty and if we are unable to properly characterize a

crypto asset, we may be subject to regulatory scrutiny,

investigations, fines, and other penalties, which may

adversely affect our business, operating results, and

financial condition. The SEC and its staff have taken the

position that certain crypto assets fall within the

definition of a ``security'' under the U.S. federal

securities laws. The legal test for determining whether any

given crypto asset is a security is a highly complex, fact-

driven analysis that evolves over time, and the outcome is

difficult to predict. The SEC generally does not provide

advance guidance or confirmation on the status of any

particular crypto asset as a security. Furthermore, the SEC's

views in this area have evolved over time and it is difficult

to predict the direction or timing of any continuing

evolution. It is also possible that a change in the governing

administration or the appointment of new SEC commissioners

could substantially impact the views of the SEC and its staff

. . . With respect to all other crypto assets, there is

currently no certainty under the applicable legal test that

such assets are not securities, notwithstanding the

conclusions we may draw based on our risk-based assessment

regarding the likelihood that a particular crypto asset could

be deemed a ``security'' under applicable laws.

The classification of a crypto asset as a security under

applicable law has wide-ranging implications for the

regulatory obligations that flow from the offer, sale,

trading, and clearing of such assets. Persons that effect

transactions in crypto assets that are securities in the

United States may be subject to registration with the SEC as

a ``broker'' or ``dealer.'' Platforms that bring together

purchasers and sellers to trade crypto assets that are

securities in the United States are generally subject to

registration as national securities exchanges, or must

qualify for an exemption, such as by being operated by a

registered broker-dealer as an alternative trading system, or

ATS, in compliance with rules for ATSs. Persons facilitating

clearing and settlement of securities may be subject to

registration with the SEC as a clearing agency.

Summary and excerpt from opinion of the judge from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, denying Coinbase's Motion

to Dismiss in the case of SEC v. Coinbase

In March 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk

Failla of the Southern District of New York made a

preliminary ruling in the Coinbase case, holding that because

at least some crypto trades on the Coinbase platform met the

longstanding definition of an investment contract, the SEC

can move ahead with claims that Coinbase improperly operated

as a securities exchange, broker and clearing agency. She

also said the SEC adequately alleged that Coinbase sold

unregistered securities through its staking program. In an

84-page opinion, the judge asserted, among other things, that

``the `crypto' nomenclature may be of recent vintage, but the

challenged transactions fall comfortably within the framework

that courts have used to identify securities for nearly

eighty years.''

excerpts from the sec's complaint filed against coinbase in june 2023

``In September 2019, Coinbase released a framework for

analyzing crypto assets that assigned to the crypto asset a

score ranging from 1 to 5, with a score of 1 indicating that

an ``asset has few or no characteristics consistent with

treatment as an investment contract,'' and a score of 5

meaning that an ``asset has many characteristics strongly

consistent with treatment as a security.'' Meanwhile, between

2019 and 2020, Coinbase more than doubled the number of

crypto assets available for trading on its platform, and it

more than doubled that number again in 2021. During this

period, Coinbase made available on its platform crypto assets

with high ``risk'' scores under the CRC framework it had

adopted. In other words, to realize exponential growth of the

Coinbase Platform and boost its own trading profits, Coinbase

made the strategic business decision to add crypto assets to

the Coinbase Platform even where it recognized the crypto

assets had the characteristics of securities.''

Coinbase generates most of its revenue from transaction

fees collected on crypto asset trades made through the

Coinbase Platform, Prime, and Wallet. Fox example, in 2021,

Coinbase generated $6.8 billion in ``transaction revenue,''

out of a total net revenue of $7.4 billion. Likewise, in

2022, Coinbase generated over $2.2 billion in transaction

revenue out of a total net revenue of $3.1 billion.

``Coinbase also worked closely with issuers of crypto

assets who sought to have their crypto assets listed on

Coinbase. Coinbase's ``Listings Team'' engaged in a dialogue

with issuers focused on identifying potential ``roadblocks''

under Howey. For example, on one occasion, Coinbase

identified ``problematic statements'' by an issuer that

described its crypto asset ``with language traditionally

associated with securities,'' ``implying that the asset is an

investment or way to earn profit,'' ``emphasizing the

profitability of a project and/or the historic or potential

appreciation of the value of the assets,'' and ``using terms

referring to the assets that are commonly associated with

securities such as `dividend,' `interest,' `investment' or

`investors.' '' As ``possible mitigation,'' Coinbase

suggested that the issuer ``remove any existing problematic

statements, and refrain from making problematic statements in

the future.'' Coinbase was thus aware of the risk that it

could be making available for trading on the Coinbase

Platform crypto assets that were being offered and sold as

securities. Indeed, Coinbase touted to the investing public

its familiarity with the relevant legal analysis governing

the offer and sale of securities.

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 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, if the gentleman has no more speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, as we have heard today, the entities that stand to benefit from this bill are not ordinary investors trying to build wealth but rather the crypto firms that have chosen not to register with the SEC or otherwise comply with the securities laws.

They have already made billions of dollars unlawfully issuing or facilitating the buying and selling of crypto securities, and Republicans are now proposing to reward these illegal activities by making these activities legal. This is truly preposterous.

Mr. Lynch, when he spoke, said this was one of the worst pieces of legislation he has experienced during his entire career. I understood why when I examined this bill and I saw that the Republicans created this new definition. This new definition is known as the investment contract assets.

We have talked about this, but even in the Rules Committee, while they were talking about how this bill was going to protect consumers, they did not debate us about this investment contract asset because they know that it created a void. It created a no-man's-land. This was created basically so that the crypto companies could be in a space without regulation, but it goes further than that.

It also covers traditional securities so they can be in a space without regulations.

It is not enough to say this is a bad bill. This is not only a bad bill, this is a bill where the crypto companies decided they didn't like the SEC, they do not want to be regulated, and they were going to come to the Congress of the United States. They were going to use their power, they were going to use their influence to change the rules of the game, and they were going to now go to where the commodities are regulated, and they are going to take the securities over there.

I explained to you that the CFTC is a small agency. I explained to you that they don't have a lot of money. I explained to you how much smaller they are than the SEC.

The SEC are the experts. They have been developing regulations for this country for 90 years. The SEC is 90 years old, and it is respected all over the world. We are the envy of the world because we have an

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for attempting this amendment. As a matter of fact, there have been any number of Members from this side of the aisle who have been attempting to amend this bill to try and make it better. While I have great respect for all of those attempts, if my friends had listened, if they had accepted, perhaps they could have made this a better bill. Unfortunately, at this point in time, no, with all the work that this gentleman has done, Mr. Casar and others, my friends will not accept any amendments. They are not going to accept his amendment. They don't think that the bill can be made better, and unfortunately, the bill is so bad, I don't think it can be made better either.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, while I do not oppose this amendment, I will emphasize that the broad deregulatory nature of the not fit for purpose act is such that it would severely weaken our capital markets and make us more vulnerable to bad actors, both domestic and foreign.

This amendment and the underlying bill do not protect consumers and investors. This amendment only requires a study on whether or not foreign adversaries are operating as digital asset registrants under the bill and collecting data on the U.S. consumer or investors.

We should not just be studying this issue; we should be legislating strong data privacy protections that apply all across the board.

Moreover, if TikTok was the inspiration for this bill, I will note that TikTok is not directly owned by the Chinese Government. The concern was that it was vulnerable to being unduly influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. If a China-based company was operating as a digital asset registrant under this bill, it would not fall within this study unless it was directly owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It would be easy for our adversaries to simply stand up proxy companies that appear to have no direct affiliation with them to evade the scrutiny of the study in the bill.

While I plan to support this amendment, I don't think it provides any meaningful safeguards on consumer privacy and it certainly does nothing to fix the underlying problems of the not fit for purpose act.

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

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

The bill's supporters have claimed that this bill is necessary to provide legal clarity as to when a digital asset is considered a security and when it is considered a commodity, but this bill is anything but clear. It is 253 pages of highly convoluted and poorly defined language.

At the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, the Republicans testifying on the panel in defense of the bill could not answer a simple question from a fellow Republican as to whether dogecoin would qualify as a security or a commodity under this bill.

They pointed to their five-part decentralization test in the bill, which is, again, anything but clear. The current test for determining whether something is a security is called the Howey Test. It has stood the test of time, with guidance from the SEC clarifying its application, in addition to decades of case law expounding on how it applies to a variety of different assets. Even the courts have agreed with SEC's interpretation of the Howey Test, classifying digital assets as securities in a strikingly consistent manner.

The five-part decentralization test in this bill has not been tested, and it would create a slew of new litigation trying to decipher how it applies. Instead of a study, we should remember the fact that Members of Congress and legal experts struggling to agree on basic facts about what this bill would do foreshadows the mountains of litigation that this bill would result in to figure that out.

This bill provides the opposite of legal clarity, as the bill supporters claim. Instead, it provides several more convoluted and untested definitions to replace the time-tested Howey Test in place today.

The only thing clear about this 253-page bill is that it results in the substantial deregulation of crypto, just as the crypto industry has asked for.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, under H.R. 4763, crypto that is deemed to be a digital commodity would come under the CFTC's purview, which would include a new explicit authority for the CFTC to regulate crypto spot markets. However, this amendment would ensure that this new authority for the CFTC to regulate crypto spot markets does not include traditional commodity spot markets.

It is already bad enough that this bill would result in mass deregulation of crypto and even some traditional securities, too. This amendment takes the bill to the next level by trying to preemptively block the CFTC to oversee non-crypto spot markets.

The bill's supporters continue to insist that this bill is only about crypto, but it has serious implications for traditional securities. With this amendment, it would now appear to have serious implications for traditional commodities also.

It is wholly unclear why Republicans, who have placed so much faith in the CFTC to police the spot markets of digital commodities, think that this agency is unable to oversee the spot markets of everyday commodities they currently regulate, like oil, wheat, and livestock. Excessive speculation in spot markets of tangible commodities is a real problem that can harm working families' budgets.

For this reason, Democratic CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero has called on the CFTC to study excessive and harmful speculations in the commodities markets. Specifically, she has stated: ``The CFTC has an impressive surveillance program and an equally impressive cadre of commodity markets experts to rely upon as it seeks to understand these pressures of working families, farmers, and producers. We should use them more, and more publicly.'' I agree with her.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families and farmers by leaving the CFTC's existing authority to protect them from speculation in the traditional securities market fully intact.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at the Rules Committee hearing, Republicans revealed their true intentions with this bill. My friend, Mr. Norman, stated, regarding the investors who were defrauded by FTX:

I blame the investor. I mean, would I get on an airplane

with two wheels missing and one wing? They should have done

their homework.

Representative Austin Scott of Georgia on the Rules Committee doubled down on this kind of victim blaming, saying that he believed we should use a buyer-beware approach.

This is entirely offensive to consumers to simply say that they should have known better than to get defrauded. The very definition of fraud implies that the consumer could not have been expected to know or understand some facet of a contract.

I would venture to say that this bill is even worse than just a buyer-beware approach. This bill creates a facade of regulation that is designed to make ordinary investors and consumers think they are protected and that the investments are safe. In reality, this bill would facilitate and legitimize fraud rather than warning consumers to beware of the risk.

In addition to blaming millions of defrauded investors, Republicans continue to move forward with a bill that exempts the same crypto firms that were unlawfully issuing or facilitating crypto securities, giving them a get-out-of-jail-free card.

This is what Republicans love to do. They blame consumers and investors who have been defrauded while also advancing bills to protect those same firms that are ripping off consumers and investors.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 109, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn accounting guidance for crypto

assets from the Securities and Exchange Commission known as Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, or SAB 121.

The bill's sponsors have falsely asserted that this bill is meant to address a narrow concern from a particular special interest group, but, in reality, it is drafted in a way that is far broader than this narrow concern.

The collateral damage caused by this CRA resolution would be far- reaching, causing significant harm to investors, consumers, public companies, and the safety and soundness of our capital markets.

The bill takes a sledgehammer to fix an issue that may merely need a scalpel, and it does so because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not only interested in doing the bidding of special interest groups, they are also interested in attacking and undermining the SEC in every possible way, as they have done relentlessly since the beginning of this Congress.

SAB 121 is highly technical guidance, therefore, let me break it down simply. SAB 121 has been in place for 2 years, and it only applies to companies that hold crypto assets on behalf of their customers.

This is known as providing custody services. SAB 121 provides guidance for these companies in two respects.

First, it advises companies on how they should disclose crypto assets that they have in custody, and second, it advises companies on how they should record those crypto assets on their balance sheets.

The first prong of the guidance I described on disclosure of crypto assets is critical to providing transparency for investors and the public on volatile crypto assets.

This kind of transparency helps prevent the kind of fraud and mishandling of crypto assets that led to the collapse of major crypto companies like FTX. In fact, this disclosure guidance has been broadly supported by industry and advocate stakeholders alike.

The second prong of SAB 121 advises relevant companies on how to record crypto assets on their balance sheets.

Under the guidance, the amount of the liability should correspond to the fair value of the crypto assets they are obligated to safeguard.

This ensures that the company providing custody services has sufficient resources to secure these assets for the users against any theft, loss, or other misuse that could result in financial consequences.

The SEC has explained that this guidance is prudent due to the unique risks and uncertainties associated with crypto assets.

The sponsor of this resolution has tried to reason that this bill is meant to respond to a narrow concern from largely custody banks, but it really has much more far-reaching, negative consequences.

Specifically, this special interest group has raised concerns that the second prong of SAB 121 that I described on accounting mechanisms would interact with existing bank capital requirements in a way that would absolutely make it cost prohibitive for them to provide custody services for crypto assets.

To be clear, even this special interest group has expressed support for the disclosure guidance in SAB 121. They are only concerned about how the accounting guidance applies to their balance sheet.

In fact, a letter sent by the special interest group requests ``targeted modifications'' to address this concern.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Bank Policy Institute, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Forum, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

February 14, 2024.

Hon. Gary Gensler,

Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, this bill does far more than implement targeted modifications, as this letter proposes.

This CRA resolution would overturn all of SAB 121, not just the part that this special interest group has complained about.

Mr. Speaker, I am curious whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have actually read this letter from the special interest group that they are trying to pander to or whether they are bothered to consult the largest custody bank in the United States, the Bank of New York Mellon, which holds in custody more than $45 trillion in customer assets because they told me that they do not want this CRA and did not push for it in any way because they share our concerns about the bill being overly broad.

The consequences of using a CRA, rather than a more narrowly tailored bill, go beyond simply overturning SAB 121 entirely when the aforementioned concerns from special interests only have to do with one little piece of it.

If this resolution is passed, the SEC would be prohibited from issuing any guidance in the future that is substantially similar to this one, including disclosure guidance on this issue. This means that the SEC would not be able to simply turn around and narrowly address this one little concern while preserving the rest of the guidance. It also means that while the crypto industry clamors for the SEC to provide for clarity, this resolution would tie the SEC's hands, making it harder for them to provide the clarity that the industry purportedly wants.

I am further concerned that if this resolution is passed, industry and investors alike will no longer be able to receive timely guidance from the SEC staff, as this resolution is also intended to be a warning. Passing this resolution would have broad and negative consequences for all public companies and their investors, with implications for the entire securities market, not just crypto.

The SEC has issued numerous staff accounting bulletins. The one being repealed today is No. 121, which has helped companies understand how SEC rules apply in specific situations.

If the SEC were to pull back in this regard, it would be particularly harmful to smaller companies with less resources dedicated to compliance and could result in more enforcement actions as they struggle to understand how to best comply with SEC rules.

Chairman McHenry and I have worked well together to find common ground on crypto issues like stablecoins. However, instead of finding ways to work together, Republicans are recklessly pushing this harmful, partisan resolution.

Let us not forget, the SEC is our cop on the block and should be supported because they protect our investors.

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

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

This is my response to the gentleman from Nebraska. My Republican colleagues have claimed that the SEC failed to consult with prudential regulators on SAB 121, but if this resolution is passed, the SEC will effectively be barred from consulting with prudential regulators in order to issue revised guidance on this matter.

Again, the plain consequences of this bill do not match the purported goals of the bill's sponsor and supporters. If Republicans wanted the SEC to consult with prudential regulators and reissue modified guidance, they should do that. This bill does the opposite. It actually prevents the SEC from consulting with prudential regulators in order to reissue modified guidance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 109--Congressional Disapproval of ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121'' Issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission--Rep. Flood,

R-NE, and four cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res.

109, which would disrupt the Securities and Exchange

Commission's (SEC) work to protect investors in crypto-asset

markets and to safeguard the broader financial system. H.J.

Res. 109 would invalidate SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 121

(SAB 121), which reflects considered SEC staff views

regarding the accounting obligations of certain firms that

safeguard crypto-assets. Moreover, as explained in staff's

accompanying release, SAB 121 was issued in response to

demonstrated technological, legal, and regulatory risks that

have caused substantial losses to consumers. By virtue of

invoking the Congressional Review Act, it could also

inappropriately constrain the SEC's ability to ensure

approriate guardrails and address future issues related to

crypto-assets including financial stability. Limiting the

SEC's ability to maintain a comprehensive and effective

financial regulatory framework for crypto-assets would

introduce substantial financial instability and market

uncertainty.

If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 109, he

would veto it.

The President states that the resolution before us would ``disrupt the Securities and Exchange Commission's work to protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.''

This statement not only explains how terrible this resolution is, but that the President of the United States of America will veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been opposed by the Biden administration. Further, this bill is opposed by the following organizations: Americans for Financial Reform, Better Markets, Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America, United States Public Interest Research Group; New Jersey Citizen Action, Demand Progress, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Texas Appleseed, 20/20 Vision, and Bank of New York Mellon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have echoed calls from the crypto industry saying that legislation is needed to provide clarification on how securities laws apply to them, but their actions reveal their true motivation.

They don't want clarity; they want broad exemption from securities laws.

Let's look at their actions to date. The first crypto-related bill that Republicans marked up was the FIT 21 Act which they claimed was responsive to the need for clarity on crypto.

The only thing clear about this highly convoluted bill is that it would provide the crypto industry with broad exemptions from current securities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the industry, the custody industry, the big banks that hold these crypto assets simply asked for a little correction, a little clarity, a little information.

The Republicans are taking advantage of this, and this is the first crypto bill that Republicans are bringing to the floor today, and it would do what the majority always attempts to do, and this would actually reverse SEC guidance that provides clarity on accounting standards specifically for crypto assets. Not only that, but it would undermine the SEC's ability to provide clarity on crypto in the future.

That is why the administration sees this bill for what it is and has advised us that they would veto it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Flood, has asked what the alternative to this CRA resolution would be, and that answer is very simple: Draft a bill that narrowly addresses the current question about how this guidance applies to banks. The use of a CRA is dangerous and reckless.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davidson entered a letter into the Record from several bank trades. What he did not mention was that the banks only asked for target modifications when they wrote about this legislation. In fact, in that letter, they supported the transparency requirements this resolution would repeal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is. It is a giveaway to one powerful special interest group in an effort to weaken the SEC, a crucial agency that protects investors and the functioning of our capital markets. This is the agency that is working to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans. This is the agency that is crucial to making our capital markets the envy of the world. This is the agency at the forefront of ensuring that innovation, like in crypto, is done responsibly and in accordance with existing security laws. We simply cannot afford to weaken the SEC.

Moreover, this resolution harms investors by eliminating much-needed transparency on volatile crypto assets, making it harder for them to make informed investment decisions. It also harms crypto users because transparency also deters fraud and other mismanagement of assets that can lead to devastating losses for consumers.

Additionally, the resolution increases the likelihood of market volatility because a lack of transparency can result in more unexpected failures of crypto-related companies.

Finally, this resolution harms all public companies who benefit from the SEC's practice of providing timely guidance through Staff Accounting Bulletins.

If the Republicans would like to address the issue raised by large custody banks, they should do that, but there is no need to cause broader harm to the SEC and all of the people and companies that rely on it to maintain safety and stability.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States would not be giving us this information this early about vetoing unless they saw this as a serious issue that must be dealt with right here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to stand here this evening as I mourn the loss of my dear friend, Donald Payne, Jr.

In my own way, I adopted Donald Jr. and he accepted me as his other mother.

I loved him because he was a fighter. Experiencing his own health problems, he worked hard to address the health problems in our society and to educate and legislate to get healthcare and support for others.

He was a gentleman. All the Members loved, supported, and respected him. All the Members of Congress loved him because of his spirit.

I loved his support for all others when he was having his own problems.

I also enjoyed loving his dress. Mr. Speaker, he had those beautiful bow ties, and he wore those fabulous suits and shoes in all of his colors that he coordinated.

I would compliment him, and we would laugh and joke about the fabulous eyeglasses that he had and on and on.

He was a man of style and fashion. I am going to miss him, and I am going to miss inquiring about his wonderful children, his triplets, and about what they were doing.

Additionally, I am going to just plain be overcome with grief and try to get

some relief in the fact that I knew him, and may he rest in peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the Rules Committee yesterday, the sponsor of this bill, Mrs. Kim, said that we would need to pass this bill in order to send a strong message to Iran that its unprecedented attack over the weekend was unacceptable.

I agree that the attack was unacceptable. It is wholly unclear how this bill, in any way, sends any such message. The bill would do nothing to deter another act by Iran. Instead, it would make it harder for the President to respond to emergency situations, including humanitarian crises.

Under current law, a President has the authority to waive sanctions only if they determine that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States and submits a report to Congress providing justification for the waiver. The authority also limits a President to a waiver period of 180 days, and they must comply with the same requirements in order to renew the waiver.

This is an authority that has been in place for decades and has been used effectively by Republican and Democratic Presidents to protect our national security. It is designed to allow the President to be nimble in response to situations that threaten our national security.

This bill would hamstring this limited waiver authority by prohibiting the President from moving forward with a waiver until a waiting period of up to 70 days have passed.

Let me repeat: It would prohibit the President from moving forward with a waiver until a waiting period of up to 70 days has passed.

During this waiting period, American hostages could be languishing in a foreign prison, victims of a major catastrophe could be suffering, or tensions between American allies and adversaries could be escalating to result in a war.

While any number of major threats to our national security are unfolding, this bill would impose an unreasonable waiting period during which the President would be required to jump through hoops as Congress holds hearings, receives briefings, and requests further information. This is an untenable way to handle emergency situations.

Further, by hamstringing our ability to respond quickly, this bill could very well create a rift between us and our allies abroad who are relying on us to support them in critical moments.

Let's be clear: The current law already provides for transparency on any waivers by requiring reports to Congress explaining the rationale for any waivers. Congress already has every right to do robust oversight by holding hearings, receiving briefings, and requesting further information to better understand the justification for any waivers. We don't need this bill to allow us to do that.

The difference in this bill is that the President is subjected to a long waiting period, during which untold damage could be inflicted on the United States, our relationships with our allies, and our standing on the international stage.

After decades of a shadow war between Israel and Iran, and months of combat between Israel and Hamas that has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, this weekend's attack by Iran has brought us even closer to the precipice of an all-out war in the region.

This is not the time to be tying the hands of our President to respond to emergencies, and this is not the time to be risking a rift in our international relationships with allies.

Moreover, limiting our ability to facilitate the funding to provide humanitarian relief for people in need, as this bill would do, is simply shameful. It degrades basic American values supporting the life and dignity of all people.

At the Rules Committee hearing yesterday, the bill's sponsor also claimed that the Biden administration had weakened sanctions on Iran and that this bill was designed to make it harder for the President to do so in the future, but the Biden administration's Iran sanctions program is the most extensive set of comprehensive sanctions against any country.

In fact, the Biden administration has ramped up pressure on Iran since the Trump administration by imposing sanctions on hundreds of additional individuals and entities for activity related to Iran, including the illicit sale of Iranian oil.

The Biden administration also successfully seized a tanker carrying Iranian oil, which was ``the first-ever criminal resolution involving a company that violated sanctions by facilitating the illicit sale and transport of Iranian oil,'' according to the Department of Justice.

In fact, some of the examples that Republicans have cited for sanctions waivers that Biden has implemented were merely renewals of waivers that were initiated under the Trump administration. National security interest waivers, including those that facilitate humanitarian exceptions to sanctions, have long had bipartisan support, including under the Trump administration.

This is just another example of the double standard that Republicans use to fuel their political talking points. They are desperately trying to find a way to blame the Biden administration for Iran's latest attack when there is simply no real basis to make that connection.

Republicans are also applying a double standard to Ukraine and Israel. They are jumping to support our ally Israel and punish Iran, but they have been holding up badly needed funding for Ukraine, thereby emboldening our shared enemy, Russia.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6323 will do nothing to stop or even deter Iran from attacking Israel again, nor will it end the humanitarian disaster and war in Gaza or help any of our allies under attack by authoritarian regimes. This bill does nothing to help Ukraine or provide Taiwan with any assurance that we have their back. Instead, this bill will have America sitting on its hands while any number of threats to our own national security unfold.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and affirm that America will continue to be a beacon of hope for people around the world.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if my GOP colleagues want to combat terrorism finance, the way to do that is not through convoluted congressional waiting periods and lengthy proposal processes, tying the President's hands. Rather, I have a solid, bipartisan bill to propose, one which passed our Financial Services Committee markup with a unanimous vote of 50-0. That bill, my bill, is the Stopping Illicit Oil Shipments Act of 2023,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

In September of this year, the Biden administration negotiated an exchange with Iran for the release of five American citizens detained by Iran. In exchange, the Biden administration agreed to not block the transfer of the Trump-approved $6 billion in Iranian assets that were the proceeds of Iranian oil purchased by South Korea.

Under the agreement, the funds would be transferred from a restricted account in South Korea to a restricted account in Qatar, where funds would be used exclusively for the purchase of humanitarian goods for Iranian citizens. The transfer did not authorize disbursement of funds, and the sanctioned Government of Iran has not and will not see a penny of that money.

Moreover, Treasury has stated that the U.S. and Qatar have agreed to effectively block the funds for the foreseeable future. Contrary to Republican claims, it is not accurate to tie this $6 billion to Hamas' attack on October 7 because that attack was being planned for multiple years, likely beginning under the Trump administration.

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, we received notice that the majority would be moving several Financial Services bills the very next day. This has put Members and staff in the difficult position of assessing and understanding multiple complex bills in a matter of hours in order to cast an informed vote.

The justification for jamming these bills through so quickly is allegedly to respond to Iran's attack on Israel over the weekend. Instead of taking the time to work in a bipartisan manner on bills that would actually increase pressure on Iran, Republicans are politicizing this moment, pointing the finger at the Biden administration, and rushing to pass bills like this one that don't actually provide any real solutions.

In response to Iran's latest attacks, they are just desperately trying to prove that they are doing something instead of taking the time to do something meaningful that actually has a chance to pass the Senate also.

Democrats and Republicans agree that we should be doing everything possible to crack down on Iranian leaders and terrorists. Instead of debating legislation that will accomplish this shared goal, we are here debating legislation that will only make it harder for us to respond quickly to crises.

Put simply, this bill would endanger our own national security and degrade our international standing. For these reasons, I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this important amendment which mandates the SEC report on the impact Silicon Valley Bank's collapse has had on local banks and small business lending.

Our committee's previous examination of the 2023 banking crisis, while informative, should not be the end of the story. With the expertise of its talented and knowledgeable staff, the SEC can supplement our reporting and is sure to provide further valuable insight into what exactly happened and how regulators and lawmakers can avoid this from occurring again in the future.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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

Madam Chair, my amendment will provide needed transparency into the opaque world of private equity and venture capital funds, particularly around their investments in minority-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses.

Today, these private funds play a big role in capital allocation, from mergers and acquisitions and non-bank lending, to restructurings and bankruptcies.

As of 2021, private funds held more than $7 trillion in investments. Venture capital funds manage nearly $1.3 trillion, providing funding to startups and early-stage companies across the country.

These are staggering numbers, but the amount going to minority-owned and women-owned businesses is not. For example, the White House earlier this month noted that Black-founded companies receive less than 1 percent of venture capital funding annually, while women-founded businesses receive just about 2 percent.

When I was the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the first thing I did was to create a Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion.

Our committee convened dozens of hearings on diversity and inclusion, receiving hundreds of hours of testimony that highlighted one overwhelming conclusion, which was the clear business case for supporting and investing in diversity.

Study after study has found that diverse companies consistently outperform nondiverse companies despite being disproportionately undercapitalized. This is good for industry, good for business, and good for investors.

Yet, limited access to financing is restricting the ability of women and businessowners of color to fulfill their potential, generate jobs, and contribute to their communities. Because private funds do not have the same transparency requirements as other large investors, it is difficult to gauge the number, size, and scope of their commitments to women-owned, diverse-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses.

Moreover, following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, a number of private firms pledged to make advancements on racial and gender equity as part of their business strategy. Without accurate and timely information, investors and the public cannot hold these fund managers accountable.

That is why my amendment is so important. If private funds want to take advantage of the ability to peddle their investments to the public, which is what this bill would permit, then at the very least, they need to show how they are investing in all of America.

Madam Chair, I ask all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My commonsense amendment would require private funds to disclose their investments in women-owned, minority-owned, veteran-owned, and rural businesses.

For far too long, these well-performing, well-deserving businesses have been undercapitalized and underinvested in by wealthy firms that made empty promises when it was trendy to do so.

We know that what gets measured and reported gets done. This amendment would provide the kind of transparency that investors, particularly public pension plans, want--to ensure they are investing in the most profitable parts of the economy.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, March 8, 2024, to celebrate International Women's Day.

Thirty years ago, in 1994, at the suggestion of my friend Beata Pozniak, who is with us here today, I introduced H.J. Res. 316 in the House of Representatives to have Congress designate March 8 as International Women's Day.

In this year 2024, International Women's Day has special importance. Today, as women's rights are under attack, we rededicate ourselves to fight for gender equality, reproductive rights, pay equity, maternal health, and preventing violence against women.

The United Nations has selected the theme ``Inspire Inclusion'' for International Women's Day in 2024.

Here in the House of Representatives, let us inspire women's inclusion and honor women in the United States and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, in less than 12 hours, President Biden will deliver his State of the Union Address

and lay out his top policy priorities for our Nation.

Last week, I sent the White House a request that the national affordable housing and homelessness crisis be included as part of the State of the Union Address, and I was very pleased to hear this morning that housing will, in fact, be included in the address.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a special guest. All the people of this country are my special guests today. I am speaking to them about this critical issue of housing and the need to take the people off the street.

Unfortunately, the homeless on the street and in tents and broken- down RVs will not hear this message tonight, but they expect their Members of Congress that they elect to office to speak up for them.

I speak for them, fight for them, and expect everybody, Democrats and Republicans, to fight for the people in America who are homeless and who are looking for better and decent housing.

While the Biden administration has helped our Nation achieve one of the strongest labor markets with record job creation and a record number of businesses forming, we simply cannot talk about the state of our Union without talking about the state of housing in this country.

Housing is a critical part of every person's well-being, the largest part of family budgets, and a major part of our economy. Yet, rising housing costs continue to make up nearly 70 percent of core inflation, outpacing modest wage gains.

To put it in plainer terms: Americans are making more money, but housing costs are so extreme that the extra money in their pockets still isn't enough. Indeed, more renters and homeowners are paying a greater share of their income on housing than ever before. Since 2020, home prices have skyrocketed by 47 percent. Rents have increased by 40 percent during that same timeframe.

It is no wonder that families in nearly every income bracket are feeling the pain of one of the worst housing and homelessness crises in our Nation's history.

Today, a record 653,100 people are experiencing homelessness nationwide as we saw a sobering 25 percent spike in the number of people who are experiencing homelessness for the first time in their lives, between 2022 and 2023.

I am talking about people we call our neighbors, family members, students, teachers, and frontline workers. Elderly Americans, who should be enjoying retirement, are one of the fastest rising groups of people experiencing homelessness.

This is simply unacceptable. While the state of our Nation's housing is bleak right now, this doesn't have to be our future. We know how to solve the housing crisis.

During the pandemic, Democrats secured unprecedented levels of housing relief through bills like the American Rescue Plan Act, which promoted equitable economic recovery, spurred more development of affordable housing, and helped nearly 3 million people experiencing the risk of homelessness. Over 12 million people successfully avoided eviction or foreclosure thanks to these investments.

In short, Democrats proved what we can accomplish with substantial, targeted investments in housing, and we should use this as a blueprint to finally end this crisis.

During this Congress, however, people on the opposite side of the aisle, the Republicans, have tried to defund Federal housing programs and even passed a bill to make homeownership more, not less, expensive.

As the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, I commit to press the fight in Congress to secure robust investments in fair and affordable housing.

I have introduced my groundbreaking housing bills, again, including the Housing Crisis Response Act, the Ending Homelessness Act, and the Down Payment Toward Equity Act. These bills would help create nearly 1.4 million affordable, accessible, and resilient homes and reduce housing costs, end homelessness, and revive the dream of homeownership for all.

I am looking forward to hearing President Biden's State of the Union Address, and I hope that housing is highlighted as a major policy and not just a passing mention.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear a lot about housing. I am not going to give up on housing. I am going to speak to every Member of Congress about voting for housing to end this crisis.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2799, a bill that would cause significant long-term harm to both small businesses trying to raise money and mom-and-pop investors trying to save for their retirements.

A primary reason our capital markets are the envy of the world is because investors have confidence in the financial products that they are investing in. That confidence is hard won to be sure. It is the result of a robust disclosure regime that has been in place for decades and requires public companies to transparently and accurately tell investors about the inner workings of their businesses, their financials, and the risk involved with purchasing their shares.

Investor confidence is also rooted in strong legal protections for investors and their right to have a say in the company's direction through the proxy process.

And importantly, investor confidence is based on having a strong enforcer, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, that sets clear rules of the road, and keeps fraudsters out of the system.

While our capital markets are far from perfect, trillions of dollars are invested every year because investors are confident that they won't be ripped off.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today threatens to undermine that investor confidence.

First, H.R. 2799 would expand the number of companies that are able to offer securities without needing to register with the SEC or provide critical disclosures to ordinary investors.

This expansion will only benefit moderate to large companies rather than the small businesses this act purports to help. By exempting more companies from public SEC registration requirements, this bill expands the size of the private securities markets, which are growing rapidly and already outnumber the public securities markets 2-1.

Second, this bill makes it easier for financial middlemen to peddle opaque, illiquid, and high-risk private securities to retail investors who won't receive the information they need to make informed investment decisions.

This isn't democratizing finance or creating investment opportunities; this is Wall Street creating another target to dump its bottom-of-the-barrel investment products onto retail investors.

Private securities, compared to public securities, are significantly more risky and more volatile, less transparent, harder to cash out, and have fewer legal protections.

The bottom-of-the-barrel private securities that will be sold to retail investors as a result of this bill are especially dangerous because they will only be offered to retail investors after private equity and venture capital funds have already passed on them. It is important to notice that 90 percent of startups fail and private equity would love to dump these stocks on your constituents.

Third, H.R. 2799 undermines the ability of State securities regulators to help small businesses raise capital and stop fraudsters. State securities regulators are on the front line of our capital markets, investigating complaints of investor fraud, enforcing State securities laws, educating investors about their rights, and helping small businesses raise money to fund their goals and comply with the law. We should not preempt States by blocking these important overseers from doing their jobs.

To summarize, H.R. 2799 is a Wall Street wish list that collectively exempts big corporations and investment funds from transparency and accountability while gutting critical legal safeguards for Main Street investors. By weakening investor protections in numerous ways, this bill would allow fraud to proliferate and retirees and other mom-and- pop investors to be ripped off by bad actors.

This bill would ultimately harm confidence in our capital markets while doing nothing to assist the very small businesses the bill purports to help. In fact, as investors lose confidence in our markets, small businesses will see their capital costs rise, not fall.

I want to thoroughly debunk the notion that this bill somehow helps small businesses because the truth is that it would do just the opposite. I am very supportive of small businesses.

In fact, I have worked extensively this Congress with Chair McHenry on bipartisan ways that we can help small businesses raise capital. We have worked together to strengthen crowdfunding and to change the rules on accredited investors. There are several policy solutions that we have agreed on that represent targeted ways to increase capital formation without harming investor protection.

In fact, we worked together to pass 13 bills last year that represent bipartisan, commonsense reforms that support small businesses, enabling those who are knowledgeable about the risks of private securities to make informed investments, while ensuring robust investor protections.

Most of these bills also passed under suspension on the House floor, so there is a bipartisan way forward on this issue, but instead of working with Democrats to get these bipartisan bills to the President's desk, Republicans have packaged together this toxic combination of partisan bills and are focusing their time and energy here.

Mr. Chair, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to oppose this bill at a markup last April. I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously reject it on the floor today.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

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

Let's be clear. This Wall Street wish list bill is going nowhere in the Senate, but we have several bipartisan bills that support small businesses and retail investors that actually have a chance of getting into law.

Chair McHenry and I have worked together for several years on legislation to strengthen our capital markets, going back to the JOBS Act and our efforts on crowdfunding and legislation to support angel investors.

In fact, this Congress, we worked extensively together on 13 bipartisan bills, including my bill, H.R. 2796, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act, which requires the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital- raising options for underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas and to meet annually with representatives of State securities commissions; Mr. Meeks' bill, H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act, which requires an issuer with the multi-class share structure to disclose certain information regarding the voting power of specified persons; Mr. Himes' bill, H.R. 2812, the Middle Market IPO Underwriting Cost Act, which requires the SEC to study the costs encountered by small- and medium-sized companies when undertaking initial public offerings and certain offerings exempt from securities registration requirements; and Mr. Gottheimer's bill, H.R. 2593, the Senior Security Act, which establishes a senior investor task force within the SEC. The task force must report on topics relating to investors over the age of 65 and make recommendations for actions to address problems encountered by senior investors.

Committee Democrats also supported several more Republican bills that help promote capital formation. We could have worked together to get these all included in the NDAA, but Chair McHenry knows why that didn't happen--Republicans blocked all of these bills from being added.

Today, Republicans are pivoting to a completely partisan approach to the issue with this bill. This is par for the course with extreme MAGA Republicans who prefer to pander to their base instead of actually getting things done.

When Republicans are done wasting their time on this extreme MAGA bill, Democrats will be ready to get to work on solutions that actually have a chance of making a difference for small businesses and retail investors.

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

Mr. Chair, the following organizations oppose this bill: the North American Securities Administrators Association, Consumer Federation of America, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Communications Workers of America, SEIU, Steelworkers, Transport Workers Union of America, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, Center for American Progress, and Main Street Alliance.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in all my years in Congress, this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen of a Wall Street wish list masquerading as a lifeline for small businesses and ordinary investors.

Let me be clear. This bill does nothing to help small businesses. It only helps big business avoid transparency and accountability, and that is why the Biden administration opposes this bill.

This bill does nothing to help ordinary investors. It only helps make it easier for investors to be duped by conflicted middlemen into purchasing some of the riskiest securities out there.

Under this bill, these middlemen will have free rein to mask critical details about investment risk and target elderly people and others with what they claim is a great investment opportunity that will help them build wealth but, in reality, is a fraud.

For example, these middlemen will be able to take the failing businesses off private equity balance sheets and offload them onto Main Street investors.

This bill also hinders small businesses' ability to raise money by preempting State law and preventing State securities regulators from doing their job.

Mr. Chair, we see this bill for what it is: a Wall Street wish list that throws Main Street investors under the bus.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for Main Street, not Wall Street, by voting ``no'' on this bill. 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.

This amendment sponsored by Mr. Lawler codifies a controversial Trump-era SEC rule that is opposed by many investor advocates.

The amendment allows high-risk startups to tout their businesses in front of retail investors. This is currently prohibited in part because roughly 75 percent of VC-backed startups fail.

The amendment would specifically allow angel investors and issuers to market their startup ventures to prospective investors at colleges and nonprofits, including churches.

Broadly marketing your securities to the public in this fashion-- known as a general solicitation--is usually prohibited for private offerings like these because the public nature of the market effectively makes the offering itself public, and therefore, requires registration with the SEC.

At universities and churches, students and congregants gather to learn, and they generally trust the information they receive. I don't believe these are spaces where it is appropriate to market highly risky investment opportunities.

In my own district, a church was the victim of an investment scheme in which an issuer conned the church out of nearly $6 million. I previously offered an amendment during our committee's markup last year that would prevent future frauds like this from happening again--frauds that would be further enabled by this amendment.

As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Lawler's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, what Mr. Lawler doesn't recognize is that the underlying bill makes the accredited investor definition meaningless. All you have to do is check a box, and poof, able to invest.

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

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

Simply put, this amendment allows failure-prone startups to market their private offerings to unaccredited investors who do not fully understand the risks involved.

Colleges and churches are not the place startups should be raising money, and in general, we should not make it easier for them to push their risky private securities on unsuspecting retail investors, as this provision does.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment ignores the reality that many investors, particularly seniors, do not have access to or the ability to review electronic documents or simply do not prefer electronic delivery of financial documents. It would require investors to opt in to receive paper documents, which would effectively prevent individuals who do not have easy access to the internet from viewing important financial documents about the securities they invest in.

Several major investor advocate groups strongly oppose this bill, including the AARP, the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, and Public Citizen, to name a few.

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

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The name of this amendment, Improving Disclosure for Investors, is an oxymoron. It does absolutely nothing to improve disclosure for investors. Rather, by forcing them to opt in to paper filings, it would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for many investors to see what fees they pay for their funds, brokerage accounts, and retirement savings. Instead of having easy, instant access via paper copies, they would need to go online to search for that information.

This amendment is more appropriately called the improving Wall Street profits at the expense of retail investors act.

I strongly urge my colleagues to protect elderly investors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment, sponsored by Mr. Lucas, would be better titled the retirement hazard for charities and educational institutions amendment because it puts the retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk.

403(b) retirement plans cater to teachers, school administrators, professors, nonprofit employees, and healthcare workers. These individuals dedicate their lives to the public interest. They invest in the future of our children. They ensure we get the healthcare we need, even during a global pandemic, and too often, they aren't paid nearly enough to do the work that they do.

There are current restrictions on how 403(b) plans can invest their assets, and this is to ensure that these retirement accounts are generally safe investments. However, this amendment would allow 403(b) plans to invest in two types of risky, unregistered securities: collective investment trusts, or CITs, which is a type of pooled investment vehicle, and insurance products called variable annuities, both of which are considered fairly risky products for unsophisticated investors.

Madam Chair, under this amendment, neither of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC.

More than half of all 403(b) plans are not covered by ERISA protections, meaning that this newly allowed risky investment activity would also escape the oversight of the Department of Labor.

While Republicans claim they are creating parity with 401(k) plans, this is simply untrue because all 401(k) plans are, in fact, covered by ERISA. To create true parity, we would need to restrict the sale of CITs and variable annuities to only 403(b) plans covered by ERISA.

All in all, this amendment would carve out over $1.4 trillion of retirement funds from Federal oversight. This would constitute the single largest deregulation of our capital markets in years.

Ultimately, this amendment would put the hard-earned retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk. That is why I strongly oppose it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, by allowing unregistered financial professionals to sell unregistered products to 403(b) plans, this amendment would leave America's teachers, healthcare workers, and other public interest professionals vulnerable to losing their retirement funds.

Neither of the two unregistered products contemplated nor the sales of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC, which allows them to skirt investor protections and exposes plan participants to greater risk of loss. Congress must do everything in its power to ensure our teachers and dedicated public servants have a comfortable retirement, but this amendment would do anything but that.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would be better titled increasing investor risks.

Currently, closed-end funds, which are a type of mutual fund, are only allowed to invest up to 15 percent of their assets into private funds. This current limit of 15 percent gives closed-end funds some flexibility to invest in private funds but establishes a reasonable restriction, considering private funds are subject to less regulation and disclosure. This restriction also accounts for the fact that private funds invest in fledgling startups and distressed companies, which are significantly more risky than public securities, and most of their investments fail.

Mrs. Wagner's amendment would eliminate the restriction on closed-end fund investments into private funds, allowing them to invest up to 100 percent of their assets into private funds. Moreover, the amendment provides zero safeguards to mitigate the new risks created by this blunt deregulation.

Like all the rest of the capital markets-related amendments before us today, this one is opposed by investor groups, consumer and investor advocates, and State regulators.

For these reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, as I stated, the assets that private funds purchase are significantly more risky than public securities. In fact, 9 out of every 10 of their investments fail.

Allowing closed-end funds to invest all of their assets into private funds can be risky for America's retirement savers, who should be able to trust that these funds are safe investments for them to save for retirement.

As such, Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 1, and NAY on Roll Call No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 4768, the No Russian Agriculture Act. I thank Chairman McHenry for his support of my bill and his efforts to get it to the House floor. I certainly appreciate the ability to start the new year on this bipartisan note.

Over nearly 2 years, Russia's unprovoked and criminal war against Ukraine--led by Russian President Vladimir Putin, his military, and his mercenaries--has inflicted tremendous harm to Ukraine's people and infrastructure.

Among its many horrific acts, Russia has endeavored to strangle Ukraine's economy by restricting the country's exports, including those of its agricultural sector, which is critical to maintaining the world's food supply.

Prior to the war, Ukraine was the world's fourth largest corn exporting country and the fifth largest wheat exporting country. Annually, 400 million people were fed with Ukrainian food products with more than 50 nations receiving those goods. It is why Ukraine has been called the breadbasket of Europe.

Russia previously agreed to the Black Sea grain initiative, pledging to allow for Ukrainian commercial food and fertilizer exports from three Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea.

In July of last year, however, Russia withdrew from that initiative, causing global food prices to spike and hunger and pain around the world. Since then, Russia has attacked ports and grain stores in Ukraine, limiting the entrance of its agricultural products into the global market.

Today, Russia is not only trying to unjustly seize Ukrainian land, but it is also trying to sell its own grain and stolen Ukrainian grain into the world's market to support its war efforts.

This bill will help to push back on Russia while also increasing grain supply resiliency in the face of the shocks that Russia is causing in the world's agricultural markets. Specifically, H.R. 4768 would require the Treasury to press the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other multilateral development banks to fund projects that decrease the reliance that countries around the world have on Russian agricultural commodities, particularly fertilizer and grain.

Doing so will help to undercut the financing of Russia's war and will help to improve global resiliency to the food supply disruptions that are caused by Russian President Putin.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4768, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The brutality that Russia has unleashed upon the Ukrainian people is having profound effects in Ukraine and around the world. This includes significant cuts to global food supply and steep prices for countless foods and fertilizers.

This bill provides a novel way for the United States to further counter Russia; to stand with our fellow democracy, Ukraine; to reduce the world's reliance on Russian food; and to undercut Putin's use of food as a weapon. However, I would emphasize that this bill is not a substitute for providing additional funding for Ukraine so that it can stand up to Putin and his invasion. Congress must come together to stand behind Ukraine and to display U.S. strength in the face of injustice.

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

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

Madam Speaker, S.J. Res. 32 would repeal the CFPB's small business lending rule, which was required by Congress in section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The CFPB's rule would simply require lenders to collect and report data on small business lending. This data will help drive competition in the market, lowering small business costs, and help combat discrimination.

I worked closely with my colleague, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to ensure that this provision was included in the Dodd-Frank Act because we both knew how critical this data would be to helping small businesses.

Access to capital is a key challenge that many small businesses face. For example, Goldman Sachs found that over 75 percent of small businesses they surveyed were concerned about access to capital. Research has also shown that minority-, women-, and LGBTQ+-owned businesses are more likely to be denied loans and pay steeper interest rates.

Access to capital is an issue for many family farms, which don't have the same access that larger agricultural corporations have. In addition, access to capital is an issue for our young people working in the gig economy seeking to start a business of their own but too often told ``no'' by banks.

Unfortunately, section 1071 of Dodd-Frank was not implemented for 13 years. In fact, small business owners had to sue the CFPB under the Trump administration to force implementation of this rule.

One of the small business owners who sued the CFPB was ReShonda Young, a Black woman who founded Popcorn Heaven, a small business selling gourmet popcorn in Waterloo, Iowa. Ms. Young explained that she was a victim of discriminatory lending practices, saying: ``In several instances, there was just blatant discrimination, and in other cases, I found out about it later on. And it wasn't just me.''

She further explained: ``I had a regular hourly income. My personal expenses were pretty low, so it wasn't like I couldn't cash infuse from my personal [income] if I needed to. My credit score was good, but I couldn't get what I needed. . . . Enough of the disrespect. Enough with the blatant disrespect. When a bank says, `We don't want your business for any good reason. Why don't you move your account elsewhere?' it was at that point, okay, something has to be done.''

The CFPB, under the leadership of a Trump appointee, settled the case and agreed to a court-supervised timeline, resulting in the final rule that the CFPB issued this year.

Now that the CFPB's rule has been finalized after all of these years, so many other small businesses in Iowa, North Carolina, Texas, California, and all across the country will be able to reap the benefits of a more transparent lending marketplace that Ms. Young should have had.

Specifically, the CFPB rule will allow small businesses to comparison shop between lenders and see how much other small businesses are being charged for their loans. This price transparency is essential to a competitive and fair marketplace.

In designing the rule, the CFPB was mindful of its impact on community financial institutions. For example, the rule completely exempts lenders that originated fewer than 100 small business loans in each of the 2 preceding years. This fully exempts more than 80 percent of depository institutions, including 98 percent of credit unions. For lenders that originated more than 100 loans, they would have more than 2 years before they would need to begin to comply with the rule in 2026.

Make no mistake, S.J. Res. 32 is just another part of Republicans' relentless attack on the CFPB. They have erroneously claimed that the CFPB is unconstitutional and unaccountable and have even gone so far as to attempt to eliminate the agency altogether.

Our constituents disagree. A recent bipartisan poll found that 82 percent of

Americans, including 77 percent of Republicans, support the CFPB and its mission.

I will highlight three main points about the CFPB small business lending rule that this resolution would repeal. First, the data collected under the rule is very similar to data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA.

This data collection under HMDA has been going on for decades, successfully bringing much needed transparency to the mortgage market. Despite misleading claims by Republicans, I want to be very clear that small businesses are not--are not--are not required to provide demographic information about their ownership under the rule. It is completely voluntary.

I have to repeat that because too many on the opposite side of the aisle are telling people that it is a mandate. It is not. It is voluntary.

Second, this rule will help all small businesses thrive by providing greater transparency that will drive competition in the small business lending market ultimately increasing access to credit and lowering interest rates for small businesses.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, we have seen how HMDA data from mortgages have been instrumental to identifying discriminatory trends like modern-day redlining. The CFPB's rule would similarly help prevent discrimination in the small business lending market, giving our regulators and the public another tool to identify discriminatory trends.

Many of us also recall the challenges that too many small businesses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, when Congress stepped in to provide relief through the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, the big banks that were tasked with implementing the program chose to prioritize their concierge clients, including some Members of Congress, leaving small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, out in the cold.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that the same big banks who misused PPP to the detriment of small businesses during the early stages of the pandemic are now pushing for the passage of this Senate Joint Resolution 32 opposing the CFPB, which would help them continue to operate with a lack of transparency and avoid accountability.

However, the big banks are alone in their support for this misguided resolution. In fact, more than 230 organizations representing small businesses, family farmers, community leaders, and others strongly oppose S.J. Res. 32.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about how we love small businesses, how we support small businesses, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Therefore, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to actually do something to help small businesses.

Stop talking about how you support small businesses when you know they need access to capital that they don't have. We want to do something real for small businesses. If you do, vote down this harmful resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee who has been working on the Small Business Committee for over 30 years and served as the chair before the last election and who has been fighting for small businesses all of her career.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, your arguments show that you are here to support the big banks who do not want small business in the banks. They don't want to be bothered. As a matter of fact, you try to be convincing that it is not voluntary, but it is voluntary.

They are asked: Do you want to give this information? It is voluntary, and you can't get away from that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), who is also the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the vice ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, who has been working on this issue for a long time.

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

Madam Speaker, we have these Members on the opposite side of the aisle spending all of this time supporting the biggest, most profitable banks in the country, yet these Members won't stand up for small business lending. They don't want the data so that we can understand what is going on and why people in this country, minorities in particular, farmers, small farmers, family farmers, et cetera, can't get loans.

In the last decade, these megabanks made so much money: J.P. Morgan, $215 billion; Wells Fargo, $197 billion; Bank of America, $105 billion; Citigroup, $93 billion. They repeatedly broke the law, even though they were making all of this money. I want you to know they consider this just the cost of doing business.

We have even more here when we take a look at some of the other banks that paid fines instead of lending money. They would rather pay fines instead of lending to small businesses. What kind of fines are we talking about here? We fined them for all kinds of fraudulent activity.

In the last decade, megabanks made so much money, and then they repeatedly paid fines. For example, the Bank of America paid $66 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. J.P. Morgan paid $43 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Citigroup paid $19 billion in fines. They could have been lending this to small businesses. Wells Fargo paid $12 billion in fines.

Some of our Members want to say that we just want to shame these big banks. Yes, I do because it is a shame that they are so profitable that they do not want to spend time with small businesses. It takes up too much time. Small businesses don't earn as much money for the bank, et cetera. They don't even want them in their banks, and we have to do something about that.

We are shining a light on the existing practices of lenders, and if those lenders are charging minorities and small family farmers, et cetera, exorbitant interest rates, there is no reason that we should not get the transparency that we need to stop this.

I will tell you, one of the reasons you hear us being so passionate over here is because the big banks don't need you to defend them. They don't need you to stand up for them. You should be putting your time and effort into what you can do about the small businesses.

I am not going to go into a lot of information. We have Members on the opposite side of the aisle who felt they needed capital. When we did PPP, they came to the government, competing with real small businesses that could not get capital. Not only did they take out the money, but they have been forgiven for it. They didn't have to pay it back.

I am not going to talk about everybody, but I am going to mention Marjorie Taylor Greene because she is everywhere talking about everybody, claiming she is for small business. She took out $180,000, and she has been forgiven.

I am not going to talk about the rest of them, some of my friends over there, but I have a whole list of Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP money and didn't need it, some of them as rich as cream. They took this money, and they are not paying it back. Then, they come in here and talk about why we should not have transparency and do everything that we can for these small businesses that are desperate for capital.

You can sing the song that you love small business all that you want. You can have the Small Business Saturday with a big, fake kind of operation on small business lending in your community, but it doesn't do any good if they don't get the capital. They need the money. They need to be treated fairly.

Yes, I want to shame the big banks. I want to shame them. You have one of these banks that even took out false accounts, made up accounts, and we had to stop them. We fined them, but do you know what? They are too big to fail, and they keep doing what we are fining them for.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Yes, I am a political activist. I am an activist for the people who send us here to represent them. I am an activist for the least of these. I am an activist for small business. I am an activist for veterans. I am an activist for children. I am an activist for education, for better healthcare, and I am very proud of it.

I tell you, it is shameful for us to continue to be dominated and controlled by the biggest banks in America, taking time on the floor of the people's House to defend them and to vote

against the very people who send you to this House to represent them. It is absolutely shameful.

It is time to get out from under the influence and control of the biggest banks in America and stand up for the people who really need to make these banks do what they should be doing rather than saying: No, we are not going to comply with the law, and yes, we will pay the fines because we are rich. We have so much money we can do that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

When we started this debate, I mentioned ReShonda Young, who happens to be a young, Black woman from Waterloo who had many challenges getting a small business loan and sued the CFPB to complete the section 1071 rule. After CFPB settled the case with her, Ms. Young said: ``I am just humbled to be part of the process. Sometimes we feel so small, but this is one of those things that shows if we are willing to speak up, we actually can make a difference.''

Ms. Young has since sold her business and is now working with other investors to try to open up the first minority bank in Iowa, with the goal of being certified as a CDFI, offering the kind of small business loans to others that she had such a time obtaining.

Let me just tell you something. We support CDFIs, the community development financial institutions. Why do we support them? Because they could not get loans from the banks in America. Here we are, the taxpayers, further trying to help small businesses by supporting these community development financial institutions. They were developed because small businesses couldn't get loans.

Then, on the opposite side of the aisle, we have people who are opposing how we can support these small businesses by getting the transparency that we need to have done. They would rather support the biggest banks in America and have the taxpayers try to do something about small businesses with CDFIs than give their small businesses an opportunity.

I tell you, I don't know how they are going to vote on the other side, but this issue is not going to go away. I tell you that the constituents are going to learn in this country who is supporting small businesses. All of this talk and this rhetoric about ``I love small businesses,'' ``I support small businesses,'' will not continue to work.

The fact of the matter is, small businesses are shutting down, closing, because they don't have access to capital.

For all those Members on the opposite side of the aisle who took out PPP loans that have been forgiven, you ought to be ashamed and not oppose the CFPB from trying to protect these small banks, as the courts have told them to do.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot more that can be said. We are going to continue to unveil this information about who is simply spouting rhetoric and who is actually doing something for small businesses.

It is unfortunate that we have to fight this hard. We have to do everything that we possibly can because the banks don't want them in their banks. They don't want to be bothered with them. They are too small.

We have small businesses who only need $50,000 or $75,000 to improve their technology to take their businesses to a place where they can earn more money.

We can't even start to talk about startup capital. None of them get startup capital. If they are able to convince anybody for a little capital to expand their businesses, they will do that. Otherwise, small businesses do not have the support of the Republicans in the House of Representatives as it is seen here today.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Quigley very much for his leadership on the Subcommittee of Appropriations for T-HUD.

Let me just remind everyone that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend on the opposite side of the aisle, voted against the infrastructure bill. I just want everybody to know that.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4820, which is among the worst-- if not the worst--housing appropriations bill that has ever come to the House floor. This bill would exacerbate the affordable housing crisis by slashing the Federal housing budget by nearly 30 percent.

What is more concerning is the human cost of such draconian cuts. Specifically, these cuts would result in at least 15,000 families losing rental assistance, 20,000 affordable homes lost from the supply pipeline, and 78,000

children put at risk of in-home lead hazards.

Mr. Chair, our children, families, and communities cannot afford such devastating costs. If we want to talk about dollars, research shows that cutting funding for homelessness and lead abatement costs taxpayers more due to increased cost of our healthcare, education, and criminal justice systems.

Further, housing is a primary driver of inflation. This bill will only cause housing costs and inflation to rise even more.

It is unconscionable that as we enter the colder holiday season, Republicans would rather evict families than simply fund housing programs at the levels needed to support current families receiving assistance. Indeed, 600,000 people are already homeless in the United States. Home prices have skyrocketed by 45 percent since 2020. Over 35 million people experienced rent hikes in the last year, and an alarming 4 million households are now on the brink of eviction or foreclosure.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I just continue by saying the Trump tax cuts for the rich cost $4 trillion. They are conservative when they want to be, but when we are needing housing opportunities for the least of these in this country, they cannot afford to be charitable and take care of the people of this country who need safe and secure housing.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 552; NAY on Roll Call No. 553; NAY on

Roll Call No. 554; NAY on Roll Call No. 555; NAY on Roll Call No. 556; YEA on Roll Call No. 557; and NAY on Roll Call No. 558.

Mr. Speaker, Kartoon was a special human being. He could have been another unfortunate statistic in Watts but Kartoon was determined that his life could, and would, be better. He was also determined to be a change agent in his community, making the lives of others better as well. He helped negotiate the crucial gang truce between Bloods and Crips and would assist local residents find housing and get into rehab, changing their lives forever.

I first met Kartoon through his friend Greg Brown at Project Build, an important social services organization I helped found many years ago. Kartoon was a larger-than-life, grassroots community activist who always had a positive outlook, a contagious laugh and could ``spit a poem'' better than most. With the right assistance, he got his life together and became both a substance abuse counselor, a successful Hollywood location scout and a supportive father who dearly loved his entire family.

Kartoon left a lasting impression on everyone who met him. When attending an important community meeting or rally and blessing us with a poem, you knew Kartoon was in the room, and we were glad he was there.

Kartoon blessed us with poetry. Here is my poem to Kartoon:

To the family & friends

of my friend Kartoon

I join with you today

To honor and remember

The very special one

Known to everyone as Kartoon

Kartoon our dear friend

And loved one who has left us way too soon.

Kartoon the Poet with

The great big smile

It seems Kartoon was

Only with us for a short while

Our Kartoon was well known

By so many in Watts,

And all over Los Angeles and many more

He has left us to grieve and

Wonder as he closed the door

I suppose the heavenly one up above knows best

But now its time to let Kartoon rest.

Kartoon lived a life of

Fun, woes, and uncertainty

He experienced both the good and the bad times

But he sure loved life and people of all kinds

Oh Kartoon and how he laughed

He was full of jokes, he bluffed and he played

But he always stayed

I have been wondering and thinking,

Now how is Kartoon going to conduct himself up yonder

But we really don't have to worry, speculate or ponder

One thing we know for sure

Kartoon will be the center of attention with his rhymes so

pure

Kartoon always showed up

Whenever we called

And he never missed he helped us all

There is much more that I could say

But I think Kartoon would say let's leave all of that for

another day

Goodbye goodbye, my dear Kartoon,

Now it is your time to soar, to lift your wings

It is your time to fly

You go on and, on in your glory,

And don't you look back

I've told you why.

You've got it! You are the man!

You, go on up there,

And give God a hand.