Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 683 provides for consideration of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, under a structured rule. As the Clerk reported, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also makes in order a substitute reported by the Committee on Financial Services modified by the amendment in part A of the Rules Committee report as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The self-executing amendment in part A would ensure that the bill complies with the new PAYGO requirements. The rule makes in order the 13 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, with each amendment debatable for 10 minutes. As yesterday's debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and onto the President's desk, and this bill reflects that consensus. As a Representative of a district in a floodplain, I understand the need for a healthy flood insurance program. My hometown of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. Whenever I talk about our efforts to improve Sacramento's level of flood protection, I also mention the importance of flood insurance. If you live behind a levee, you should have flood insurance. And the Federal Government has the responsibility to promote this kind of coverage. I also recognize that to accomplish this, we need a healthy and robust national flood insurance program. That is why legislation we debate today, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, is so significant. Through this legislation, we will meet our responsibilities, we will ensure coverage is available to those at risk, and we will educate those same individuals as to the benefits of flood insurance. This bill, which was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by a bipartisan majority of 38-29, takes us in that positive direction. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the deficiencies in the program were laid bare. What remained was a program $25 million in debt with a questionable future. It is imperative that we rebuild and reform the Federal flood insurance program. For many Americans, owning insurance to protect against a flood is more valuable than coverage in case of fire. That is because homes in a designated special flood hazard area are almost three times as likely to be destroyed by a flood as by fire, and this is a case for almost three-fourths of all homes in Sacramento. This is an important program that must be reformed to ensure its long-term stability and solvency. The bill we are considering today makes reasonable reforms and lays the foundation for a stronger and improved flood insurance program, and for that I would like to thank Chairman Barney Frank and Chairwoman Waters for their leadership on the bill. This bill takes important steps to modernize the flood insurance program. It raises maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation. It provides new coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your home. And it also provides optional coverage for basements and business interruption coverage for commercial properties. These are all positive steps that will allow the program to continue to provide peace of mind to those impacted when a flood occurs. In moving forward, Congress is also making the flood insurance program sustainable. The bill tightens enforcement of purchase requirements and adds subsidies on vacation homes, second homes, and businesses. While these actions may not be popular, this will help invigorate the program in the long run. In addition to helping homeowners, this measure will also benefit taxpayers nationwide by preventing insurance companies from putting their liability on the Federal Government at the expense of the American public. By identifying flood hazards, managing floodplains via land use controls and building requirements, and providing insurance protections, this essential program reduces flood loss expenses to the Federal Government, saving taxpayers an estimated $1 billion a year. This measure provides much-needed reforms to restore solvency to a program that has faced unprecedented financial strain in the wake of the 2005 hurricanes. This bill increases accountability of federally regulated lenders by imposing stricter penalties on those lenders that fail to enforce mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements on mortgage holders. This takes our country in the right direction by encouraging individuals to purchase flood insurance, while also addressing the needs of the program. I would also like to express my sincere thanks for Chairman Frank for working with me this past year on issues that I believe make this a stronger overall bill. I appreciate the chairman including my legislation, the Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2007, in this bill. This grant program works. A little over two years ago, with the support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, conducted just a flood insurance outreach initiative. SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 NFIP policyholders in the American River floodplain with impressive results. After a year, 74 percent maintained their flood insurance policies. Of this group, 43 percent now carry preferred risk flood insurance. Preferred risk policies provide property owners who are protected by a levee or other flood mitigation method with full flood insurance at a reduced price. Because of their lower price, these preferred-risk policies have a higher level of policy retention. To put this success in perspective, FEMA more than recouped its investment. SAFCA exceeded its target for policies retained more than 20 times over, adding millions to the flood insurance program's bottom line. Extending these grants to other floodplains will only strengthen and build the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. In short, I truly believe we must encourage greater participation in NFIP rather than providing loopholes for people not to participate. On that note, I would also like to thank the chairman for including language that authorizes a study for future participation of low-income individuals who live in a floodplain. We have an obligation to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to be insured and has access to affordable flood insurance. This is an important issue that I look forward to working on with the chairman, the committee, and many of my colleagues in further addressing this policy issue. I think it is important that we continue to modernize our flood insurance program. I am pleased that the committee kept the amendment from last Congress' flood insurance bill, language that simply asks that FEMA utilize emerging weather forecasting technology as they update our national flood maps. Moving forward, we must make the investment in weather forecasting technology so that we have the tools to adjust to the changing climate. FEMA needs to be prepared to utilize this technology as it becomes available to us. We must ensure that FEMA has the highest quality information when it works to determine the level of risk for vulnerable geographies. This policy initiative takes us in a positive direction. Finally, the bill we are debating today is a vital tool to be used after a flooding incident occurs. We need this bill; however, I want to close by saying that flood insurance is one piece of what should be a national comprehensive flood protection approach. Congress must continue to provide the tools and policy for prevention. We must continue to provide the funding for our flood protection infrastructure projects, and we must continue to provide the authorization for the projects that provide the protection for our communities. With these policies of prevention in place, it will make communities safer and reduce the likelihood of our communities having to utilize their flood insurance policies. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage of the underlying Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 683.

Ms. MATSUI. I would just like to comment that we had a discussion yesterday. I must say that the Rules Committee is different this year than it was last year. I was in the minority last year. We have vigorous discussions in our committee. We have made in order 13 amendments.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we made amendments in order last night, and I stand by the Rules Committee product. It might be that later on down the road you may want to work with the Financial Services Committee; but at this point in time, we did make 13 amendments in order.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the Rules Committee made 13 amendments in order that we believe will benefit the discussion and debate on this very important issue. I would like to point out that three of these amendments were, in fact, bipartisan amendments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 683 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. Yes, I have.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, the earmark rule is not waived in this rule despite the claims of my colleagues. I urge them to read page 2, lines 6 and 7, that the earmark rule specifically excludes the earmark rule from the waiver. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue. Additionally, the Rules Committee took testimony yesterday on this bill. Unfortunately, some of the Members who spoke today didn't even come to testify on their amendments. Mr. Speaker, this bill takes the National Flood Insurance Program in a positive direction. This bill takes important steps to modernize the flood insurance program. This bill has bipartisan support. It raises maximum coverage limits to keep up with inflation; it provides new coverage for living expenses if you have to vacate your home; and, moving forward, Congress is making the flood insurance program sustainable in the long run. Mr. Speaker, these are all positive steps that allow the program to continue to provide peace of mind to those impacted when a flood event occurs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, even though it does not do as much as I would like. In fact, less than 2 months ago I voted with a majority of this body for a bill that covered more children. It strengthened health care for millions of American citizens and restored fairness to our Medicare system and invested in preventive health. Unfortunately, that bill cannot pass the Senate. And sometimes, in order to make change, we must compromise. Compromise is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. And though the bill before is us is not ideal, it is a step in the right direction. It is rare that Members of Congress have the chance to provide health care to 4 million more children with one vote, but that is the opportunity we have today. My district is like many others in this country. In my hometown of Sacramento, there are children who can see a doctor when they get sick. They go to a pediatrician and get a checkup or have their ear infection examined or their teeth cleaned regularly. But there are also thousands of children in Sacramento who do not have this access, thousands of kids whose families cannot afford the huge cost of health insurance. These are children who cannot see a doctor until they're seriously ill, children who do not get the medical attention until they get to an emergency room. It is for these children, the thousands in Sacramento and the millions across the country, that we must pass this legislation today. It is for these children that the President must sign this bill. If he vetoes it, he turns his back on 4 million more children in need. He will disregard the will of a clear majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today as a colleague, but also as a proud grandmother. My two grandchildren are named Anna and Robby. Most of what I do in Congress is colored by how it will affect them and their generation. Anna and Robby are fortunate. They have stable reliable health insurance. Millions of other children are not so lucky. Anna and Robby's peers are the reason I support this compromise bill, Mr. Speaker, even though it ignores many of the problems that the CHAMP Act addressed. Anna and Robby's peers are still the reason we should all support this bill, and they are the reason the President must sign it. We'll return to this issue soon, Mr. Speaker. We'll finish what we began with the CHAMP Act. But for now, for the sake of millions of children in this country, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution that is designed to give comfort to the millions of American families who struggle with prostate cancer. September is National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Because of the way prostate cancer affects our society, awareness is one of the most powerful tools we have to combat and defeat it. With this resolution, Congress has an opportunity to lend its voice to the communities, families, and individuals who are fighting to find a cure for an illness that kills more than 27,000 men every year. It is easy to get caught up in statistics when talking about massive health challenges like prostate cancer, and the numbers produced by this disease are indeed staggering. Over 200,000 men will be diagnosed in the United States this year. One in every six American males will have prostate cancer at some point during his life. Prostate cancer is the most common type of non-skin cancer in the country, and will kill approximately 27,000 men this year alone. Twenty-seven thousand fewer husbands, fathers, uncles, best friends, and mentors because of prostate cancer, Madam Speaker. This is not a disease that we can afford to ignore. Fortunately, we are not helpless in our fight against this killer. If caught early and treated correctly, prostate cancer can be managed and overcome. In fact, nearly all patients who identify that they have prostate cancer in its early stages survive and go on to live healthy adult lives. The problem is that early-stage prostate cancer exhibits no symptoms. As a result, early and vigorous screening is absolutely critical for doctors to find the 27,000 American men who won't catch their prostate cancer early enough, and who will die as a result. Screening will become an even more important part of our fight against prostate cancer as the baby boom generation comes of age. Males between the ages of 50 and 65 are particularly susceptible to prostate cancer, and this pool of men over 50 will only get larger in the near future. In today's United States, a man turns 50 years old about every fourteen seconds. As a result, the aggregate risk to our society posed by prostate cancer will only rise as that huge swath of people born in the 1950s continues to age. Our fight against this killer will only become more challenging, Madam Speaker, even as we increase the quality of our screening, treatment, and research related to the disease. That is why awareness will be so critical in the near future. The more people we make aware of the risks of prostate cancer, the better our chances of curing them before it is too late. National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month is a vital part of this mission. Every year in September, prostate cancer advocates, survivors, patients, and policy leaders heighten awareness of this disease. This is not just a feel- good exercise, Madam Speaker. It saves lives and keeps families together. In many ways, the growth in Federal research spending into this disease can be traced to the positive effects and outreach of National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. A disease which once received $86 million for research is now a $466 million priority for medical researchers around the country. This huge success is due in large part to the tireless advocacy of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, working with so many partners in support of National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. For the sixth year in a row, the United States Senate and the President have issued resolutions supporting National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. The House of Representatives has never joined them, Madam Speaker, until today. With the resolution I now introduce with my colleague Mr. Latham of Iowa, the people's House will finally be on record supporting the worthy goals of National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Millions of American families around the country deserve the help of the House of Representatives in their fight against this silent killer, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this timely and overdue resolution.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a comment before yielding to my next speaker. I would like to point out that seven amendments were made in order. Two of the minority amendments offered were redundant changes, so one of those was made in order. And, finally, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Biggert was made in order. We are providing ample opportunity for debate and for Members to vote on the provisions of the bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my remaining speakers are not here, so I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Texas is prepared to close.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 650 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, H. Res. 650 provides for consideration of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in order seven amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. This bill is being considered under a structured rule that will allow the House to consider amendments to address important issues with regard to this legislation. I look forward to the debate on the important issue before us today. I rise today in support of the rule providing for the consideration of the Expanding American Homeownership Act and for the underlying legislation. I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for offering this bill. I thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their hard work, along with the other members of the Financial Services Committee, in bringing this important legislation to the floor. The bill underlying this house resolution addresses an issue of critical importance to our constituents and to our economy, the subprime mortgage lending crisis. We are here today to consider reforming the Federal Housing Administration's loan policies as a means of stemming the tide of foreclosures that have besieged our Nation. Owning a home is part of the American Dream, but predatory lenders have been crushing that dream by taking advantage of home buyers with damaged credit. Lured by attractive initial terms, vulnerable home buyers who do not qualify for federally backed loans take on subprime mortgage loans that they cannot afford. These loans come with escalating interest rates which start low and encourage overborrowing. The borrowers learn too late, when their homes are foreclosed upon, that they will not be able to afford those higher payments. We are now faced with the unfortunate situation that our residents are losing their homes in record numbers. The increasing rate of foreclosure continues to make the news in California and across the Nation. Data released just last month show the rising foreclosure rates in cities across the country. The numbers are as high as one foreclosure in every 27 households. That is not acceptable. And the housing market continues to suffer. Last week a report from my Sacramento district cited a more than 13 percent drop in the median home prices in the past year. That is the largest 1-year drop in 20 years. Despite good economic growth in the region, the housing market is in trouble. Many point to the subprime mortgage crisis to explain this. Trends like this can be seen across the country, not just in Sacramento. The administration wants to allow 80,000 people to refinance their loans through FHA. That is good but it is not going to address the scope of this problem. More than 2 million adjustable rate mortgages are up for reset this fall, at which time their interest rates will increase. Two million mortgages, that is 2 million more families who will be at risk at losing their homes if they cannot keep up with the higher payments. This pattern cannot continue. The housing market crunch, driven by the subprime mortgage lending troubles, is making waves throughout our economy. Over the past few months, we have seen the Federal Reserve cut its discount rate and make an additional $62 billion available to try to stabilize the real estate financial market. Last month, Countrywide Financial, the largest home mortgage lender, was trading at levels comparable to junk bonds. And, lastly, AIG, the world's largest insurer and one of the biggest mortgage lenders, stated that delinquencies and foreclosures are becoming more common among borrowers whose credit rates are just above subprime. So the problem is getting worse, not better. Congress needs to act and we need to act now. The bill we are considering today will overhaul the Federal Housing Administration to make federally backed loans competitive with subprime and other nontraditional mortgage loans. We need to make sure that subprime mortgages are properly regulated to get our home buyers into good loans and rein in predatory lenders. The bill authorizes FHA to offer loans with little or no down payment and directs it to approve loans to borrowers with higher credit risk than is currently allowed. These measures will enable FHA to compete with the introductory teaser rates advertised by subprime lenders. The bill will raise the single-family loan limit, enabling families who live in more expensive areas, such as California, to qualify for FHA-backed loans. The FHA has virtually no presence in expensive areas where the average price of a home already exceeds the FHA loan limit. Increasing access to FHA-backed loans will give many thousands of our constituents the stable financing terms that they need to keep up with their payments and stave off foreclosure. Furthermore, this bill offers relief to our seniors. Seniors are often targeted by subprime loans, especially for reverse mortgages. Seniors who own their homes but who have limited financial resources might need to mortgage their homes to pay for other expenses. This bill eliminates the cap on FHA reverse mortgages to meet with growing needs of our seniors in tight financial times. Finally, the legislation directs surplus FHA funds to a housing counseling program as well as to an affordable housing fund. In this way the legislation will ensure that borrowers have the opportunity to achieve the dream of owning a home as well as to become educated about their mortgage options and what it will mean in the long term. The mortgage lending troubles are getting out of control. This bill will take an important first step toward reining in a disturbingly high rate of foreclosure. Later this week Chairman Frank will hold a hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and other administration officials to look for additional legislative and regulatory solutions to this growing problem. Ensuring that FHA lending policies are up to date and competitive in the current market is a good start. This bill will ensure that our fellow Americans have better federally backed choices to buy a home. This bill will curtail the spread of subprime lending and get more of our homeowners into mortgage loans with stable interest rates and transparent terms. This is a step in the right direction. This is a bipartisan issue. The House passed similar legislation in the 109th Congress. This bill expands upon that legislation, reflective of the growing crisis. We need to pass this bill. Our constituents need this bill to keep their homes, and we need to work with our colleagues in the Senate to get this bill to the President. I look forward to the debate on the Expanding Homeownership Act and hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before yielding to my next speaker, I would like to point out that the bill directs surplus funds to an affordable housing fund. This is an appropriate use of any net FHA funds. The surplus funds are directed to a source that is consistent with the mission of this legislation: to help Americans buy homes through federally backed means. However, for those Members who do not support this fund, I want to point out that there is an amendment made in order to strike the fund. All Members of this House will have an opportunity to vote on this important issue. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I just want to make a comment that H.R. 1852 already has strong identification requirements for those applying for FHA-backed mortgage insurance. With that, Mr. Speaker, we know that our housing market is in severe distress. We must ensure that subprime mortgage lending is not putting our residents at risk. Subprime mortgages can be a very useful tool enabling those with imperfect credit to qualify to buy a home. Reining in predatory lending practices will help our families keep those homes that they have worked so hard to buy. The Expanding American Homeownership Act will ensure that FHA has the tools it needs to get more home buyers into good loans. This bill will bring the FHA regulations up to date. It will provide the agency with the ability and resources to offer a broader diversity of loans to meet the needs of the current market. This is an important bill that will give more of our constituents access to solid federally backed loans. That is a kind of stable financing that homeowners need to get through the rocky times our real estate market is weathering. The Financial Services Committee has worked very hard to get this bill to the floor. I hope that we can keep it moving forward. I hope that my colleagues will join me and show strong bipartisan support for the rule before us and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for an additional speaker.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.