Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Quincy Darnell Reese, Jr. was tragically killed by gunfire on Saturday, June 10, 2023. At only 16 years old, Quincy had already distinguished himself in the community. He excelled in his studies, maintaining a 3.4 grade point average. He was also a talented athlete who was recognized as a star basketball player and who had plans to try out for the football team in his senior year. To his closest friends, Quincy was described as a ``jokester'' who had a welcoming personality.

I include in the Record the following remarks I delivered at Quincy's services, and today offer this to him, and his family and friends:

Take some of the sadness from your hearts and gently

replace it with the warmth of shared memories and the promise

of peace to come. May you find some measure of comfort in

knowing that extended family, friends, teachers, fellow

students, and the community humbly join you in honoring

Quincy as a loving son, a cherished brother, and beloved

grandson, who represented his family and community with honor

as a young African American man. He will be remembered as an

exceptional student athlete, dedicated to his family, church,

community and Crenshaw High. My son, Ed, who coached Quincy

at Crenshaw, described him as a very gifted, hardworking,

admired, and respected student who was senselessly taken from

us much too soon. Quincy will be deeply missed by all who

love him.

May God bless you, give you strength, and keep you in His

care always.

With sympathy,

Maxine Waters

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 290, YEA on Roll Call No. 291, and NAY on Roll Call No. 292.

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3564, the MAGA housing scam act, which follows the blueprint of the GOP tax scam by helping the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Homeownership is a quintessential part of the American Dream, and it is the single most important way that households today can build wealth. That is why expanding access to homeownership is one of the best ways that we can grow the middle class.

Unfortunately, the dream of homeownership is becoming further out of reach for a growing number of households due to a worsening storm of rising interest rates and home prices, fueled by an undersupply of new housing.

In fact, house prices have skyrocketed by 40 percent since 2020, and first-time homeownership rates have plummeted to an all-time low.

Moreover, housing costs are a primary driver of inflation, which is hurting every household in America. It is against this backdrop that Republicans are actually working to make homeownership more expensive for everyone, especially the middle class.

The MAGA housing scam act would affect two different types of fees that apply to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which make up the vast majority of mortgages today.

First, this bill would extend a guarantee fee of 10 basis points for another year, costing all future home buyers an additional $5 billion.

Second, this bill would reverse recent changes to loan level price adjustments, better known as LLPAs, which are another type of fee on mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie. The amount of this fee is risk- based, meaning that it varies depending on characteristics of the borrower and loan, such as income and downpayment; whether the loan has a fixed or a variable rate of interest; and whether the loan is a cash- out refinance.

FHFA, which is the agency that regulates Fannie and Freddie, is responsible for determining the amount of the LLPAs and recently made changes to this fee to help middle-class borrowers.

To illustrate, a middle-class borrower, say, with excellent credit, who makes maybe a 5 percent downpayment on a median-priced home would have their LLPA reduced by nearly half under FHFA's changes.

This bill would reverse the recent changes made by FHFA, resulting in higher fees for middle-class borrowers. Again, the LLPAs, are only one of two fees affected by this bill. Altogether, this bill would hit middle-class borrowers with a double whammy of both an extension of a 10-basis point guarantee fee, and an increase in the LLPAs.

During the debate in the Rules Committee on this bill, I pointed out how this bill hurts middle-class borrowers who have worked hard to build excellent credit but can't afford a 20 percent downpayment.

Republicans doubled down, insisting that those with lower downpayments are riskier borrowers and deserve to pay more. What they failed to understand is that middle-class borrowers who can't afford a 20 percent downpayment are already required to purchase private mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a borrower's monthly mortgage cost. Private mortgage insurance protects Fannie and Freddie from the risks associated with the lower downpayment.

Charging a higher LLPA for risks that are already covered by an insurance policy is simply unfair.

During the Rules Committee debate, Republicans called FHFA's changes redistributive. Let's be clear: FHFA made changes to ensure that middle-class home buyers are not unfairly charged more for risks that are already covered by private mortgage insurance.

This is hardly redistribution. It is ensuring that middle-class borrowers have a fair shot at homeownership. Mr. Davidson's bill, on the other hand, would absolutely redistribute costs from the middle class to the wealthy.

Let me break this down for the Record.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that this bill would cost $1.8 billion before the addition of the manager's amendment. That represents $1.8 billion in fees that otherwise would have primarily affected the wealthiest home buyers who could barely notice such a nominal fee increase.

In order to pay for this cost, Republicans added a 10-basis point guarantee fee that would increase costs for all home buyers to the tune of $5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3564, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Chairman, before I delve into additional remarks, the Congressional Budget Office deemed this bill to cost $1.8 billion. Why then would Mr. Davidson, with his amendments, create more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said his bill would cost?

He has raised it $5 billion more. Who pays for that? I don't care how you put it. Whether it is paid for tomorrow, next month, next year, 10 years from now, who pays for that? The home buyers pay for that and that must be noted.

The bill is increased by $5 billion by Mr. Davidson, even more than the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost at $1.8 billion. Why would he do that? Why would he charge home buyers more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost?

Accordingly, I will explain further. Currently, middle-class borrowers who cannot make a 20 percent downpayment are charged higher LLPAs and must purchase private mortgage insurance.

I am going to say it again. If you are paying less than 20 percent, you have to get private mortgage insurance to

cover the risks that may be posed to the enterprises.

This is an unfair double charge on middle-class borrowers for the same risks. Don't forget, they have paid their g-fees. Everybody has to pay the g-fees to help write the undercosts of the operation of FHFA. They pay those, and it is determined on each individual loan. It depends on the characteristics of that loan.

You build in the question of risk in those fees and then you pay private mortgage insurance, which means the middle-class borrowers are paying more than the wealthy borrowers.

In fact, borrowers with PMI also have excellent credit, with median FICO scores of 754 as of December 2020, and are more likely to be first-time home buyers. They also pose less loss severity to the enterprises than borrowers who have the means to make a downpayment of 20 percent or more.

FHFA's mortgage pricing changes that reduce this unfair double charge on borrowers with PMI is a critical step to making the dream of homeownership attainable for the middle class in America.

I oppose this bill, and I oppose my Republican colleague, who is part of the message going out from FOX News.

I oppose this bill because, first of all, the $5 billion is an increase. The Republicans are forever saying that they are trying to cut budgets. They don't want to increase the amount of taxes. Yet, here he is increasing the amount that he claims he is charging homeowners, when even the Congressional Budget Office says it costs $1.8 billion, and now, he is asking for $5 billion. Well, I don't quite understand that, and nobody else should understand that. It is not needed.

Again, they keep talking about credit scores. These middle-class homeowners, who could not afford to pay maybe 20 percent down, have good credit scores, equal credit scores to the wealthy home buyers. I don't get why he keeps talking about these credit scores.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I will take a minute to say that the representation that middle-class home buyers who may not have 20 percent down also have bad credit is not true. The record should reflect that that is not true. That is made up by someone who would like to throw credit scores into this argument and argue that these middle-class buyers, who can't pay 20 percent down, all have bad credit. They do not. They have good credit, and they are eligible for a loan. The only thing they don't have is 20 percent down, and they get mortgage insurance in order to cover that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Chair, the MAGA housing scam act would reverse critical cost savings for middle-class borrowers as provided by FHFA.

Before FHFA's May 1 changes, a middle-class borrower with a high credit score and a 5 percent downpayment on a medium-priced home would have paid an LLPA fee of $81 in addition to private mortgage insurance. Today, this borrower would pay half of that fee, allowing them to access affordable homeownership.

Similarly, a borrower with the same credit score and a 40 percent downpayment on the same priced home would have paid only $27 before May 1 and today pays just $20. These are cost savings that Republicans not only want to eliminate but now they want to add an additional $5 billion in fees for everyone.

This is a scam, not a protection for the middle class. This is messaging by FOX News.

What is that $5 billion for? Why is it that Mr. Davidson is wanting to raise more money than even the Congressional Budget Office says the bill costs? This is not to be understood.

I know that there is an attempt to try to make the argument that somebody wealthier is paying for those who have less income, less money, less resources. It is not true.

Don't eliminate private mortgage insurance. If you pay less than 20 percent, you pay for private mortgage insurance in addition to the GSE fees. Middle-class borrowers were paying more than even the wealthier borrowers, so it had nothing to do with the credit score because the credit score of that home buyer who only paid less than 20 percent is as good as the credit score of the wealthier buyer. It had nothing to do with that at all.

Again, I don't know why this argument is being made by the other side. It is an attempt, I think, to message in a way that goes directly to constituents who they make angrier because their government is making them do something they should not be making them do.

Don't politicize this. This is about homeownership. This is about the American Dream. This is about making sure that those people who can afford to buy a home are able to do so.

The idea that anybody would say that, if you can't make a 20 percent downpayment but can pay for private mortgage insurance, you must not have good credit scores, that is an absolute untruth. As a matter of fact, you would not be able to get that loan if you had bad credit scores.

I wish the opposition would stop making that argument because it does not fly. That person who is paying, again, private mortgage insurance also has a good credit score. They didn't have the 20 percent down, but they are paying for it with their private mortgage insurance.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 3564, which harms middle-class home buyers and their ability to access homeownership on fair and affordable terms.

This bill responds to a misinformation campaign, again initiated by a friend of the Republicans, FOX News, and propagated by extreme MAGA Republicans. It protects wealthy home buyers and imposes billions in new fees on all home buyers.

Mr. Chair, I also oppose this bill because it completely ignores our Nation's worsening housing crisis, which is locking millions out of the dream of homeownership. MAGA Republicans are instead focused on a minuscule fee in the home-buying process that does nothing to address our Nation's housing shortage and rising housing costs that are driving inflation.

We have a shortage of 14 million homes nationwide and more than 582,500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night, with homelessness rising faster in rural communities than anywhere else in the country. Meanwhile, U.S. renters are paying more of their income on rent today than ever before. These are the real problems that Republicans should be working to solve, not increasing fees by billions of dollars according to the CBO.

In fact, this bill is opposed by Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Housing Resource Center. Industry groups such as the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors are also very concerned about this.

Republicans are forever worried about the fact that we are not making enough cuts. Yet, in the negotiations that just occurred on raising the debt limit, they wanted to cut, cut, cut, cut. They are not only jeopardizing middle-class homeowners, but they are increasing the amount of money--more than even needed--than the Congressional Budget Office has said the bill would cost.

Why $5 billion? I don't get it. I don't understand, but I am through with it.

Mr. Chair, I simply ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and 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.

Well, actually, I don't even want to waste another minute on this pointless and redundant amendment.

Anyone who pays attention to government oversight knows that the GAO already makes all of its reports resulting from legislative mandates publicly available on the GAO's website as soon as they are issued to Congress.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: one from Americans for Financial Reform and one from Public Citizen.

Americans for Financial Reform,

May 23, 2023.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Chairman, House Committee on Financial Service, Washington,

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3564 from the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Housing Resource Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Fair Housing Alliance.

[From the Center for Responsible Lending, Sept. 2020]

More Harm and No Good--So-Called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act

of 2023'' Leaves Borrowers and Taxpayers Less Financially Secure

The Center for Responsible Lending OPPOSES H.R. 3654, the

so-called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023,''

and urges Members of Congress to do the same. As written, the

bill would: (1) undo the Federal Housing Finance Agency's

recent cost changes for mortgages under the loan-level-

pricing-adjustment framework used by Fannie Mae and Freddie

Mac and (2) subject any future framework changes to the

Administrative Procedure Act. Yet. rather than protecting

America's middle class, these proposals would make it more

expensive for middle-class consumers to become homeowners

using conventional mortgage loans and more difficult for many

consumers to enter America's middle class by obtaining

affordable, conventional mortgage credit. Here is what

policymakers, advocates, and consumers need to know:

(1) H.R. 3654 Undermines Middle Class Borrowers By Undoing

The Pricing Reductions That Were Recently Made For Them. This

bill would eliminate the reductions in loan-level-pricing

adjustments (LLPAs) that the Federal Housing Finance Agency

(FHFA) recently established. Those reductions were targeted

to the lower wealth, credit-worthy borrowers who

disproportionately make up or seek to enter America's middle

class.

(2) H.R. 3654 Makes it Harder for More Americans to Enter

the Middle Class by Raising the Cost of a Conventional Home

Loan for First-Time And Working-Class Borrowers.

Homeownership continues to be the single most important

factor in determining the ability of an American household to

build wealth and enter or maintain middle-class status. Yet,

by eliminating the pricing reductions FHFA recently

implemented for lower-wealth and first-time homebuyers, the

proposed bill reinforces a two-tier housing finance system

where the conventional mortgage market continues to

prioritize wealthier borrowers while first-time, underserved

or rural borrowers with less wealth are dependent upon

government-backed loans from federal agencies. That result is

inconsistent with the statutory purpose and mandate of Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac. As the FHFA has noted, ``[a]chieving a

liquid, resilient housing finance market throughout the

country requires improved access to responsible mortgage

credit across different market segments of creditworthy

borrowers.

(3) H.R. 3654 Makes All Taxpayers More Vulnerable by

Disrupting Safety And Soundness Regulation of for Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated unequivocally that

the primary cause of the crisis was a failure on the part of

the government to regulate the financial industry,

particularly in the secondary mortgage market. Based on its

own experience in that regard, Congress created an

independent FHFA, empowered it to assume conservator

responsibilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ensured

that it would have the ability to act swiftly and

independently from the political process to manage each

government-sponsored enterprise's safety and soundness

considerations. Under H.R. 3654, FHFA would Jose the ability

to act swiftly on pricing considerations tied to safety and

soundness by being subjected to the Administrative Procedure

Act. That result would require the Agency to delay

implementation of pricing changes for an extended period that

often does not match changing dynamics in the financial

markets. As a result, taxpayers would be a greater risk for,

once again, having to bail out the enterprises.

@ Making homeownership more expensive for moderate income

borrowers and less accessible for first-time, workingclass,

rural and other underserved borrowers is not protecting

America's middle class. Likewise, depriving the enterprises'

conservator of the tools needed to swiftly respond to safety

and soundness considerations raised by pricing and, in the

process, increasing the likelihood of another taxpayer funded

bail out is not protecting American taxpayers. For each of

these reasons, H.R. 3654, the ``Middle Class Borrower

Protection Act of 2023,'' is bad public policy and should not

be enacted. CRL urges Members of Congress to vote against the

measure.

Mr. Chair, these organizations all fight hard for homeownership, especially for middle-class Americans. They are absolutely opposed to this bill.

Again, I don't understand why we are spending time on this amendment. It does not accomplish anything at all. It would require GAO to do something it already does.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Pettersen's amendment which is simply holding Republicans accountable for their claims about the impacts of the bill.

They claim that this bill will help middle-class home buyers, so I don't see why there should be any objection to this amendment which would make the implementation of the bill contingent on the truth of its claims.

Republicans held hearings on this topic where their own witnesses repeatedly debunked MAGA Republicans' claims that these changes would result in higher credit score borrowers paying higher mortgage fees than lower credit borrowers.

If we agree that the goal of this bill is to help middle-class borrowers, then I think we should be able to agree on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2792, the Small Entity Update Act, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Missouri.

This bill directs the SEC to carry out a study and rulemaking, if appropriate, on its definitions of ``small entities'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that the SEC accounts for impacts on businesses when pursuing rulemakings.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides small entities with an expanded opportunity to participate in the development of certain regulations. Through the study contemplated under the bill, ``small entities'' under SEC's jurisdiction would gain a louder voice when it comes to the development of SEC regulations that directly apply to them.

I am pleased that Mrs. Wagner was willing to accept changes to this bill I pressed for that would ensure that the SEC remains in exclusive control of the study, and whatever the outcome of the study, SEC's actions would be consistent with its overall mission.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Wagner for working with us on this bill. I also thank Mrs. Wagner for working with Mr. Casten to include his suggestion related to an inflation adjustment for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi- Class Share Disclosures Act, sponsored by the gentleman from New York.

This bill closes documented gaps around multi-class governance structures. Multi-class governance structures are those where corporate insiders or beneficial owners retain an outsized amount of voting power relative to their shares.

These structures, while they may add value, can pose significant risks to other investors, making sunlight ever more important for investors. Specifically, these structures limit investors' ability to influence management, direct strategy, and hold misaligned boards accountable.

Under current rules, the difference between a corporate insider's voting power and their ownership interest, regardless of how large that gap may be, is often disclosed in ways that are difficult for a retail investor to fully comprehend.

Accordingly, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee recommended that the SEC amend its rules to ensure that this gap is better identified and quantified for investors via a disclosed ratio. This commonsense bill adopts this recommendation to ensure investors have the clearest information available to make the best decision for themselves.

This bill is supported by the Council of Institutional Investors, whose members manage trillions of dollars of assets for people all across America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the sponsor of this bill.

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

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

This bill is pro-transparency, pro-investor, pro-corporate accountability. It strengthens investors' and other stakeholders' ability to understand the risks associated with investing in companies that have dual-class share structures.

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

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

I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2796, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act.

At the beginning of this Congress, Chairman McHenry expressed an interest in working with me to pass sensible, pro-investor, and pro- capital formation bills, particularly if they will help small businesses.

My bill would do just that. It will encourage the SEC to better serve the needs of underserved small businesses, coordinate better with State regulators, all the while protecting investors.

The Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation is an independent SEC office that was established to advance the interests of small businesses. Under my bill, the office would be directed to proactively work to identify and address unique challenges faced by minority owned, women-owned, and rural small businesses, as well as businesses located in natural disaster areas.

My bill requires the SEC's Small Business Advocate to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital-raising options for these underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas.

We all know that oftentimes you need that face-to-face connection to tell your story, but all too often, minority-owned businesses aren't invited to those gatherings.

My bill would also require the office to meet annually with representatives of State Securities Commissions to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach to addressing the unique needs of underrepresented businesses.

The North American Securities Administrators Association strongly supports this legislation, particularly as it would strengthen collaboration and coordination between regulators.

Indeed, my bill makes sure that Federal regulators and State regulators do just that, while at the same time advancing the cause of small business capital formation across the spectrum. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill.

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

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

I am pleased to have worked with Chairman McHenry on this bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on other bills that are pro-small business and pro-capital formation, while at the same time strengthening the ability of our market and investor protection agencies to do their jobs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2797, the Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Nebraska. The accredited investor framework serves to protect the general public from investing in high-risk, illiquid, private securities because they lack the safeguards that are a feature of public securities.

Unlike our public capital markets, companies do not provide anywhere near the same financial and other disclosures to investors for private offerings. Private securities also do not offer the same legal protections for investors.

The SEC and State securities regulators do not have the same ability to police the private markets as they can the public markets. The general rationale behind the comparative lack of regulations governing private securities is that institutional investors like private equity funds, hedge funds, banks, and others can demand the disclosures from the company in exchange for their investment and have significant legal resources to hold the company accountable.

These Wall Street players and other big-money investors don't necessarily need the same level of protections when investing as compared to retail investors like working families do. The accredited investor definition ensures that those who are eligible to invest in private securities do, in fact, have the knowledge to know these heightened risks.

Initially, the SEC defined accredited investors to be those who possess an intimate understanding of the risk and had the knowledge base to decide whether to invest in these particular types of securities.

However, the companies needing to raise capital privately and the underwriters and intermediaries facilitating these capital-raising activities argued for a simpler approach, so the SEC adopted the current definition which is based on financial resources.

Today, an accredited investor must meet three criteria: They must have a net worth either individually or with a spouse exceeding $1 million, excluding the value of their home; make more than $200,000 a year or $300,000 with a spouse; or since 2020, hold certain professional certifications or designations, such as being an investment adviser or broker.

This bill being considered under suspension today aims to return to the original concept of accredited investor, which is that investors in these high-risk investment offerings should be fully aware and knowledgeable of the risks involved.

We all know that just because you have a million dollars, it doesn't mean that you understand the complexities of investing. This is why it is important for the SEC to also update the current thresholds so that Wall Street intermediaries are not able to sell unregulated securities to individuals who have become accredited solely based on

the inflated value of their retirement assets.

For example, unfortunately, there are millions of accredited investors who are now being solicited to invest in products they have little knowledge about and the SEC should act to amend the definition of the accredited investors to protect those investors.

On the other hand, we have heard from some investors who really want to try their luck with some of these risky and illiquid investments, but they do not qualify as an accredited investor because they don't meet the wealth or the income test.

The Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act would solve the latter part of this problem by allowing an individual to qualify as an accredited investor if they pass an exam that ensures they are sufficiently versed in the risk of investing in the private markets.

Generally, private markets are understood to have a higher potential for total loss and can be significantly illiquid than the public markets, so having a deep understanding of these risks is necessary to navigate the space. In addition, there are fewer protections for investors when things go wrong with an investment.

With this change, any investor who wants to invest in private securities can now do so if they can pass this test, which would establish they are keenly aware of the particular risks related to high-risk and illiquid securities, as well as the conflicts of interests presented when financial professionals sell these products to investors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Flood and Chair McHenry for working with me to ensure that the test in this bill is established by the SEC and that it contains specific, robust elements that witnesses at previous committee hearings talked about when discussing how they teach and mentor their budding investors. I am also pleased that the tests in this bill would be available free of charge.

I think that this bill will solve the problem of people who are ready to invest, who are not millionaires, they are not billionaires, but they are smart and they know how to determine what the risks are. If they are prepared to take them, then let them do so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel), the lead cosponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to appropriately tailor the accredited investor definition to protect those who do not have the requisite knowledge to make certain investments while creating a pathway for those who have demonstrable knowledge about the risk associated with investing in private securities.

I believe this bill would ensure that those who possess the knowledge and risk appetite for privately-issued securities are able to invest in those.

Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support this bill that is offered by Mr. Flood and Mr. Nickel, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for affording me this time.

I am very pleased to join with all of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to honor the veterans, African-American, Black veterans, who have served this country so honorably.

We could talk all night about the contributions that have been made, the sacrifices that have been made, and we take this time to point out not only the contributions but individuals who have played an important role as Blacks in the military.

First, I would share that, in 1994, I introduced legislation, H.R. 3013, to create the Center for Women's Veterans. That bill became law under Sonny Montgomery, who was the chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs at that time. I think that overall bill was the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act.

I am very pleased that that center has paid attention to some of the concerns that we have had about the treatment of women, Black women in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize someone from my district, an extraordinary woman who happens to be a veteran.

Patricia Jackson-Kelley is a military veteran of the United States Air Force and United States Army and Navy Reserves, having served our Nation collectively for 26 years, where she rose to the top rank of lieutenant colonel after serving honorably on both Active Duty and in the Reserves.

Lieutenant Colonel Jackson-Kelley recently completed a 4-year impressive term as the national president of the National Association of Black Military Women, with chapters across the United States.

While serving our Nation in the Armed Forces and post-service, Lieutenant Colonel Jackson-Kelley served as the program manager for a 40-bed substance abuse ward and as the women veteran program manager with the Department of Veterans Affairs, West Los Angeles.

During her term on executive staff, she was instrumental in implementing programs, and she increased funds and resources for women veterans. During her time at the veterans hospital, she also served as one of the initial board members during the inaugural formation of U.S.

Madam Speaker, right now, the United States economy is being held hostage by Speaker McCarthy and extreme MAGA Republicans, who have issued a series of radical demands. In their demands, they are saying that if they are not met, they will force the United States Government into bankruptcy for the first time in our Nation's history.

Madam Speaker, this fate is exactly 16 days away. The clock is ticking. Instead of taking action to avoid this fate, Republicans are doubling down on their threats.

While communities everywhere will suffer enormous harm, no community will bear the brunt of this looming economic catastrophe more than the Black community. A default on our Nation's debt will discontinue crucial programs like Medicare and Social Security.

In my district alone, a default will jeopardize Social Security payments for 59,000 families and threaten the retirement savings of 89,600 people near retirement. A default will dramatically increase borrowing costs for auto, home, and personal loans and hinder access to credit for Black communities, which are already paying more for credit because of predatory lending practices, which still exist today.

For example, a default would increase mortgage interest rates above 8 percent and increase monthly mortgage payments on a median home in California by $254, pushing the total cost of homeownership up by over $91,000. This would further decimate the American Dream of homeownership for far too many families.

While we have made considerable progress in strengthening Black employment under President Biden, a default would significantly reverse this progress by throwing 780,000 people out of jobs, including 7,200 jobs in my district alone.

As with most economic crises, Black Americans will not only bear the brunt of a recession but will also have the most difficult time recovering. We have seen this in the past.

Let's be very clear. The brinkmanship over our Nation's debt is not only a direct attack on our economy but also on Black communities everywhere. We are running out of time to save our economy and our most vulnerable communities from a crisis of epic proportions.

Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to put an end to this needless political theater and raise the debt limit, as they did three times with no problems under twice-impeached and indicted former President Donald Trump. Not only must they raise the debt limit, but in the midst of a worsening housing crisis, they must do so without cutting a single penny from critical housing funds.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few months, the United States is on track to default on its debt for the first time in history. This is because Speaker McCarthy has unveiled a bill that he claims will fulfill our debt obligations, but in reality it will cut access to critical social programs supporting education, food assistance, healthcare, and housing. It would devastate our economy, and we all know it is a dead-on-arrival bill. It will crash our global financial markets.

According to Moody's, under McCarthy's legislation, 780,000 Americans will lose their jobs, and our Nation's unemployment rate will surge. We all know that this pain will be borne disproportionately by people of color.

Republicans must put an end to this needless political theater and raise the debt limit, as they did three times with no problem under the twice-impeached and newly indicted former President Donald Trump, who signed $4.7 trillion in new deficits into law. Not only that, but they must do so without any cuts or reductions to housing funds given the terrible state of affordability in America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues who care about our economy--or who say they care about our economy--and the American Dream to get serious and work with Democrats to avert a catastrophic default by supporting a clean bill to raise the debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be about politics. This should be about whether or not you love this country and whether or not you believe that we should pay our bills, whether or not you think it would be horrible if this government is to shut down.

If we don't pay our bills and the government shuts down, employees will not be able to put food on their tables. They will not be able to pay their mortgage or their rent. They will not be able to support their children in the ways that they should be supported. This is serious business.

Now, this business of Mr. McCarthy trying to negotiate with the President of the United States to say: Well, if you do what I want you to do, then I will support debt limits.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do what the majority wants us to do because, first of all, they don't know what they are doing. They are putting this country at great risk.

What you are saying is you don't care about the debt. You don't care about the fact that there are people waiting to be paid that we owe.

You don't care whether or not there is a government shutdown. You don't care whether or not these jobs are lost.

I am saying to you: We will not support that kind of so-called negotiation. We will not support your putting this country at risk in the way that you are doing.

You need to come to grips with the fact that we have to raise the debt limit, and it has been done historically when it has needed to be done, and we expect you to do it.

I leave this moment by saying to you: We are waiting on you, Mr. McCarthy, to do the responsible thing, get with our President, and let's support our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a significant anniversary for a company that is important to my District and our great country. On February 10, 2023, the Marvin Engineering Company will celebrate 60 years as one of our Nation's leading manufacturers of armament equipment.

What started as a small, modest machine shop in Inglewood, California, has grown into one of the most successful defense contracting companies in the world. The Marvin Group supports all branches of our military and major prime contractors, and it sells products in more than 30 countries worldwide. Thanks to the gifted leadership of founder Marvin Gussman, his wife Madeline, their partner Jerry Friedman, current CEO Howard Gussman, and President David Gussman, Marvin Engineering and its parent company, The Marvin Group, are major employers in California's 43rd Congressional District and Southern California in general.

The Marvin Group's business philosophy, its extensive capabilities, and Jerry Friedman investing a significant amount of time in Washington, DC, allowed The Marvin Group to launch Marvin Land Systems in 1995, Marvin Test Solutions in 1997, and Clean Water Technologies in 2002, all of which have expanded their customer base. In addition to the manufacturing of large aero structures, The Marvin Group produces ejector racks, missile launchers, aircraft pylons and other auxiliary equipment. It has also successfully developed its own proprietary state-of-the-art systems for advanced aircraft. With its expansion into land and sea-based platforms, including the Flyer tactical strike vehicle, The Marvin Group has won competitions and contracts from the defense departments of many of our Nation's allies around the world. I have a decades-long relationship with the management of The Marvin Group and am proud to note that they are a great corporate citizen with extensive community service involvement in Inglewood and Los Angeles. They are particularly supportive of the Hirschberg Foundation's pancreatic cancer research in honor of Marvin Gussman. The future is most definitely bright for this innovative and responsible company.

As the leadership and more than 1,000 employees of The Marvin Group gather to acknowledge this major milestone, I am proud to bring their accomplishments to the attention of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H. Con. Res. 9, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Committee on Financial Services, we organized and considered the committee's oversight plan. We debated homelessness and the lack of affordable housing, how to best protect consumers, and the need to strengthen diversity and inclusion across the financial services industry.

We also discussed the threat to our Nation's future if our country is forced to default on our debt 4 months from today. We don't always agree and, honestly, none of the Democratic amendments were adopted, but it was a civil debate about the merits of policy.

I believe all of our committee members recognize that the legislation that comes out of our committee has the potential to support wealth creation, grow small businesses, support affordable housing, and build a stable financial system and economy.

It is the contrast with the intentionality and seriousness of the debate today that makes it so hard to understand why the very first piece of legislation to come to the floor under a rule is not a proposal to address the needs of any of our constituents, to provide support to struggling small businesses, or the community banks and credit unions that finance them.

It certainly doesn't provide our markets with certainty that our country won't act recklessly and default on its debts; a situation that will bring untold harm to all of us in America.

No, Mr. Speaker, this resolution today, in fact, does nothing except spread lies and fear about a threat that does not even exist. The rightwing extremists who are running this House have forced my committee to consider as its very first piece of legislation a bill that tries to say that our country will collapse in ruin because of-- wait for it--Social Security.

The resolution suggests that because we support seniors with health insurance, our democracy will crumble. They think that because Congress and the President have provided disaster relief to communities that have been burned by historic wildfires or flooded by once-in-a- generation hurricanes that we will fall into ruin.

No, Mr. Speaker, Americans take pride in the ways that we come together to do everything from building schools to sending a man to the Moon.

Mr. Speaker, Americans know better than the fear-mongering that we see here today. They know, for example, that when the pandemic hit and people were dying all across this country, it was the Federal Government that stepped in to provide trillions of dollars of support to small businesses, workers, renters, students, seniors--and would you believe it--even Republican Members of Congress.

In fact, the government, using taxpayer dollars, provided $14 million in PPP loans to a number of our House Republicans who asked and then-- guess what--received debt forgiveness.

Now some Republicans have tried to suggest that voting against this resolution is saying that you support dictators like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong or Stalin, which is ridiculous. No one in this Chamber supports them, but do you know which dictator my extremist colleagues refuse to condemn? Oh, they didn't say anything about Hitler.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard of him, right?

My colleague, Mr. Gottheimer noticed that somehow the Republicans just forgot to condemn Hitler and offered an amendment to denounce his atrocities and mass murder. But Republicans rejected it. And I think we know why.

It is because Donald Trump--your true leader, the true leader of the Republicans and North Star for House Republicans--was reported to have frightened his own staff by saying that Hitler had done some good things.

There is only one would-be authoritarian who refused to accept the will of our voters and peacefully transfer of power after losing his election. Instead, he incited a violent insurrection on January 6 to block the election's certification that was happening in this very Chamber, but you won't see his name in this resolution or his strongman pals that he loves so much in Russia and China.

Mr. Speaker, we are a great Nation, not because we let everyone fend for themselves, but because we care for one another. We are a great Nation that comes together as communities as small as towns and as large as a whole Nation to decide to organize and collectively pay for fire departments, public schools, libraries, hospitals, roads, and bridges, and a military.

We are a better Nation because we have programs that we love. We love Social Security and Medicare. We are going to fight every inch of the way to ensure that we keep Social Security and Medicare. We are not going to let the opposite side of the aisle take away our seniors' Social Security and Medicare. I will say it again--Social Security and Medicare.

We are a better Nation because our form of capitalism includes regulatory safeguards and strong cops on the beat patrolling our financial system, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and the majority to stop these divisive ``gotcha'' tactics. Get out of the way, and let my committee and this Congress pass real legislation that puts the needs of our constituents and Nation first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Williams is my friend, but I do wonder whether Mr. Williams views the $1.43 million he received in debt forgiveness as being consistent with his views on socialism. I don't get it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

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

Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman mentioned China, and I just remind everyone of a quote by their President Trump, ``And I like President Xi a lot,'' he said. ``I consider him a friend, and--but I like him a lot. I've gotten to know him very well. He's a strong gentleman, right? . . . he's a strong guy, tough guy.''

When are you going to denounce Trump?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California just mentioned North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. Let me tell you what Trump said. He said, ``Kim wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters. We fell in love.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate to my colleagues: I love Social Security. I love Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, the ex-President who still thinks he is President said, ``I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, `This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine--of Ukraine--Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that is wonderful. . . . He used the word `independent' and we're gonna go out and we're gonna go in and we're gonna help keep peace.' You gotta say that is pretty savvy.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, let me share a quote from the opposite side of the aisle.

``Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.''

They go on to say:

``Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called Social Security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.''

This was a quote from the great President Truman, talking about Republicans' claims 70 years ago. It has revisited itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 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 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a question, and I direct it to the Speaker. Was PPP socialism? No, of course not, but some Republicans would claim it was.

Interestingly, many Republicans, including several sponsors of this ridiculous resolution, not only applied for a PPP loan but also asked that the government forgive the debt.

So I ask unanimous consent to enter this list of Republicans in the Record.

I yield 1 minute----

I include in the Record the list of Republicans.

1. Ralph Norman (R-SC): $306,520--member of Rules.

2. Roger Williams (R-TX): $1.43 million--member of FSC.

3. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): $476,000.

4. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA): $180,000.

5. Greg Pence (R-IN): $79,441.

6. Vern Buchanan (R-FL): $2.8 million.

7. Kevin Hern (R-OK): $1.07 million.

8. Brett Guthrie (R-KY): $4.3 million.

9. Ralph Abraham (R-LA): $38,000.

10. Mike Kelly (R-PA): $974,100.

11. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO): $451,200.

12. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK): $988,700.

13. Carol Miller (R-WV): $3.1 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans are tired of this body wasting its time when there are real problems to address.

I want to get started considering legislation to house the more than a half million people who will sleep outside tonight because they don't have a house of their own.

I want to get started on legislation to address the extreme wealth disparities in our country, including where CEOs now make almost 400 times what the average workers make.

I want to stop Wells Fargo-like banks from ripping off millions of consumers.

I want to get started finding ways for seniors and folks saving for their retirement to have more confidence that those who would defraud them will be thwarted.

Instead, we spend time talking about how Republicans want to force Biden to slash Social Security and Medicare, or they will turn the economy down by forcing a default on our debt.

The American people should rest assured that my Democratic colleagues and I are united in our resolve to expand access to affordable housing and good-paying jobs, protect consumers from abuse, strengthen our economy, safeguard our national security, protect Social Security and Medicare, and, above all, defend our democracy.

Let me say it again: Protect Social Security and Medicare.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 500, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2023, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Adults over the age of 65 are too often the target of financial exploitation and have become victims of financial crimes more than any other demographic.

In the annual report on elder fraud and abuse, the Department of Justice reported that, in 2020 alone, seniors suffered over $1 billion in financial losses due to fraud.

Unlike other adults, seniors are often dependent on their savings to support them in retirement, making it much more difficult for them to recover from incidents of fraud.

Brokers and investment managers, who often stand in as the stewards of the savings of seniors, are in a unique position to protect elders from financial crimes.

In 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission released a letter called a no-action letter stating that the Commission would not take enforcement action against the agents of an investment company, including mutual funds, if the person paused a payment or redemption based on the suspicion of financial exploitation.

This pause on cashing out the savings of a senior provides a necessary safeguard to ensure that the redemption is consistent with the will of the senior.

H.R. 500 would codify this SEC letter. It would also make two further changes to describe how a mutual fund adviser can establish the process at each fund to protect seniors.

I thank Mrs. Wagner for working with my staff to craft the language in this bill. This is a helpful piece of legislation that will provide one more tool to market participants to protect investors and, in particular, our Nation's retirees.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation passed with bipartisan support last Congress, and I urge my colleagues to once again

support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

H.R. 500 is a helpful piece of legislation that will support our Nation's seniors as they seek to fund their retirement.

Investment advisers and brokers want to do the right thing to stop fraud when they see it, and this bill will ensure they are able to do so.

The bill is supported by the Consumer Federation of America, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and Public Citizen.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 582, the Credit Union Board Modernization Act, sponsored by Representative Vargas.

This bill would modernize Federal requirements for Federal credit union board meetings to match a flexibility included in State credit union charter

requirements in 17 States, including my State of California.

Specifically, Federal credit unions are currently required to meet monthly. Under this bill, Federal credit unions that receive high ratings from the regulator would only be required to meet six times annually, with at least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter.

To ensure stability and mitigate the risk of institutional failure, this bill retains certain safeguards. For example, Federal credit unions that receive low exam ratings would still be required to meet at least monthly, as well as newly formed Federal credit union boards during the first 5 years of their charter.

Additionally, if emergencies or issues arise requiring a board meeting, nothing in the bill prevents Federal credit unions from meeting more frequently than what is required.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Mr. Vargas' efforts to work on this bipartisan bill and appreciate that the reforms in this bill have been structured in a way to incentivize credit union boards to take steps to ensure their institutions are safe, sound, and well managed.

This bill has broad support, including from credit unions, like the California and Nevada Credit Union Leagues, to consumer groups like Americans for Financial Reform.

I am pleased to work with Mr. Vargas to advance this bill through the House. I was pleased to do this in the last Congress.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 298, the Expanding Access to Capital for Rural Job Creators Act, sponsored by Representative Mooney of West Virginia. Last Congress, this bill was led by Democrats and introduced by my good friend, former Representative Axne of Iowa. The bill passed the House last year, and I continue to support it.

While small businesses in the big cities may enjoy easier access to capital to grow their businesses, hire and support their employees, and serve their communities, the businesses in rural America often struggle.

Rural America's job growth is half the rate than that of big cities. Rural America's poverty rate is also higher than that of the big cities, even though it has dropped under President Biden's leadership and as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats last Congress.

To better understand these issues in rural America, H.R. 298 would require the SEC's Small Business Advocate to report to Congress on particular challenges that rural businesses face in accessing our capital markets.

I am very much in support of this bill. I have always advocated that we should work together, the rural legislators and the small town legislators, to be able to do more in rural communities. Of course, that takes resources.

So while my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle may be in the cutting mode, based on what I am learning about the debt limit discussions that are going on, I would urge them to take a look at these rural communities so that we can begin to close that gap that exists.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues: It is not only when we are talking about businesses and small businesses, whether we are talking about that or healthcare or any of the other issues, the rural communities need more advocacy. They need more legislation. They need more of the Representatives on the opposite side of the aisle dealing with us so that we can correct these gaps that have lasted for far too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 298 directs the SEC Small Business Advocate to focus on the challenges rural small businesses face. I, again, urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Again, I would like to reiterate how anxious I am to work with the opposite side of the aisle so that we could close this gap and deal with the concerns of rural America. It is not only in small business; again, it is healthcare and it is in housing.

You all know that housing is one of my top priorities. I am looking forward to an urban-rural Renaissance of some kind. I want to say to Mr. Hill, I am looking forward to what can be done in Arkansas.

My mother was born in Cotton Plant, Arkansas, in his district, and I know that there are a lot of needs there, but it is going to cost money. It is going to cost time. I want the gentleman to know I believe in capital formation, and I think we can work together on capital formation.

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