I yield myself 1 minute to explain to the gentleman that this is not an imposition on the rest of the country; this is a carve-out for California. This is a protection for what we have already done. We have protections in the law from 1996; and what we are saying is, you should not have national standards that are less than what we have produced in California. I have tried to protect that. I thought that I had. And as our ranking member said, a mistake was made. We thought, based on the representations of everybody, that it had been protected. And now I am here with an amendment that simply says, leave California alone and allow the better consumer laws to stand in California. Do not preempt these laws with standards that are less than what we have in California.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing consumer protection laws specific to California during a legislative debate.
Share
More from Maxine Waters
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Green, for his good work on this bill. H.R. 3716 will ensure that if we have another banking emergency, as we did 2 years ago with several regional banks, and regulators respond…
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that will help community banks. The bill is supported by the National Bankers Association and the Community Development Bankers Association, and I am very pleased to support it. As we have discussed, there…
I support Mr. Himes' bill, which will shed light on how much small- and medium-sized companies are paying for their underwriting fees to go public. I hope it will finally put pressure on the SEC to address this important issue for smaller…
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…





