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.
Share
More from Maxine Waters
Mr. Chair, Republicans claim that section 202 purports to modernize retirement options for nurses, teachers, and nonprofit workers. Let me be clear: It does not. In reality, this provision opens these workers' retirement accounts called…
I oppose Mr. Self's amendment to strike section 307 of the INVEST Act. Section 307 is identical to H.R. 3357 sponsored by guess who? It is sponsored by Mr. Meeks. It closes gaps in the disclosures made to investors where there are…
By passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is OK with corruption, OK with foreign companies buying influence.
Mr. Speaker, in both this Congress and last, I have been particularly outspoken about the risks of retail investors investing in private securities. Amongst other things, private securities lack sufficient transparency, have longer lock-up…





