Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Spencer Bachus, Chairwoman Judy Biggert, and Ranking Member Barney Frank for their assistance and support with this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee passing it on a vote of 54-0. The spirit of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on this bill has been extremely welcome, and this is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. Madam Chairwoman, earlier this year I introduced similar legislation, H.R. 1026, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. A version of my bill passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote, and I hope that the bill offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois will also pass the House with significant support from both parties. The flood insurance program is more important now than ever before. Floods are the most common natural disaster and flood insurance is the most effective means for helping families to rebuild after a flood. Therefore, it is vital that flood insurance remain accessible, affordable and available to the 5.5 million homeowners with policies and the many more who may want or need to purchase them. Unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the flood insurance program at risk. The program lapsed three times last year. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies or increase coverage limits. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this inability in the flood insurance program is unacceptable and must be addressed. I am pleased that the gentlewoman's bill not only reauthorizes the program for 5 years but also provides the program with the tools it needs to return to a strong financial footing while protecting homeowners. The bill also addresses the impact of new flood maps on communities. The mapping process has caused confusion and financial strain on homeowners who now find themselves in flood zones and subject to mandatory purchase requirements. I saw this firsthand in my home city of Los Angeles. Last year, I was able to assist homeowners in the Park Mesa Heights area of the city who had been mistakenly placed in a flood zone. In that case, FEMA acted quickly to respond to new data and correct the mistake. However, there are thousands of homeowners nationwide who now find themselves in flood zones and subject to mandatory purchase requirements. The gentlewoman's bill would ease the financial strain on newly mapped homeowners by allowing for a 3-year delay of the mandatory purchase requirement and allows for a 5-year phase-in of actuarial rates afterwards. In addition, I know that the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the committee, will be offering an amendment similar to the one I offered at markup that would extend the 3-year delay to 5 years. I know that the gentleman has worked with a bipartisan coalition of members of the House Levee Caucus, led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and I look forward to passage of that amendment. To make sure that FEMA issues the most accurate maps, the bill establishes a Technical Mapping Advisory Council. By improving the mapping process, the council would prevent instances of erroneous flood maps, like the one I encountered in Park Mesa Heights. The bill also makes other improvements to the program by phasing in actuarial rates for pre-FIRM properties, raising maximum coverage limits, providing notice to renters about contents insurance, and allowing homeowners that receive letters of map amendment to be reimbursed for their costs. Madam Chairwoman, I believe that the gentlewoman from Illinois and I have produced a good bill that will protect homeowners, the flood insurance program, and taxpayers. I hope that we can pass this bill today and that the Senate takes up flood insurance reform in short order so that we do not risk another lapse when the program expires on September 30 of this year. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her tremendous work on this bill, and I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Ms. WATERS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I am so pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He has a long history in this area, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 2004 bears his name. I appreciate his support.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott). Mr. Scott has been a strong advocate for his constituents, making sure that they could afford it. The installment part of this bill is all because of his work.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who has worked very hard to make sure that we open up communications with communities that are located in areas where flood insurance rate maps have not been updated in 20 years.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). She has been very much involved in the development of this legislation and has worked very hard.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I am very pleased and proud to be a cosponsor of this tremendous comprehensive legislation. I would like to thank the chairwoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her work, her leadership, and her cooperation. And I would like to thank both the chairman of our committee, Mr. Bachus, and the ranking member, Mr. Frank, for their support and their cooperation on this legislation. You heard Mr. Bachus, our chairman, recount for you that 54 members of the committee unanimously voted to support this legislation. That is pretty unheard of. And I think that the committee, the entire committee is to be congratulated for the tremendous work that we all put in to making sure that we have comprehensive legislation that would afford protection for our citizens and, at the same time, as was mentioned, reduce the costs, but recognize that this has been a long time in coming. So as a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, this bipartisan effort that has brought us to this point, I would like to say that all of the Members who have spoken today, for the most part, on both sides of the aisle, have been complimentary of this comprehensive work. Of course, we did have one Member who disagreed with government's involvement in this flood insurance program. That's a rather radical view. I think most Members of this Congress believe that we have a responsibility to give support to those who are the victims of natural disaster, disasters that have been caused through, of course, no fault of their own. They're pleased that they have an opportunity to get some protection, with the help of their government, and to make sure that their homes and their families can be supported at a time that can be very traumatic in their lives. Again, I will have to remind all of my colleagues that unfortunately the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the flood insurance program at risk. The program lapsed three times last year. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. Today, you have heard the Members of Congress again on both sides of the aisle give appreciation for the mapping reform that we have included in this legislation, for the outreach that we have included in this en bloc amendment that would allow the constituents of all of our districts to understand better what FEMA is doing, how it's doing, and how they can be a part of it. I am also pleased that included in this en bloc amendment is protection for small businesses. And I am very, very pleased that we have seen this as an effort not only to reauthorize, but to correct some of the weaknesses in the program and to strengthen the program in general. With that, Madam Chair, I would ask for support for this bill. I know that there are some amendments that are being introduced a little bit later on; and I think that, again, you will see bipartisan support for most of these amendments. And I look forward to completing the bill with the amendments and to sending this bill on, where I believe we will have like support on the Senate side, and eventually to the President's desk. It's about time. I think that this country's going to be better off for it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, when the gentlelady offered her views during the general discussion, she certainly does not join with her colleagues who have joined with us in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that is in the best interests of all of the citizens of this country. As a matter of fact, I have referred to her views on this issue as rather radical. I think that for us to have an insurance program that allows participation by the average citizen so that they can be in a position to make themselves whole after a disaster, to basically repair their homes, to replace their furnishings, and to basically have a way of continuing a decent quality of life is not too much to ask of your government. So I would oppose this amendment and consider this amendment also just as radical. To say that you have a program but you can't tell anybody about it simply does not make good sense. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I claim time in opposition.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. The gentlewoman's amendment would terminate entirely the flood insurance program, which provides much needed insurance for 5.5 million homeowners. The flood insurance program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private insurance industry to stop writing flood policies. The private sector didn't want to write these policies because floods are very common and very expensive. However, the Federal Government didn't want to simply write a blank check for homeowners every time it flooded. This is why the flood insurance program was created. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Chairwoman Biggert, who has worked so hard on this legislation.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. The gentlewoman's amendment would prohibit FEMA from spending any funds on television or radio commercials to promote the purchase of flood insurance. Floods are the most common natural disaster in the United States. Unfortunately, even areas that aren't in floodplains experience floods sometimes. When that happens, the Federal Government provides aid to those homeowners and communities, and it is the taxpayer who pays for that aid. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, insurance premiums pay for the cost of flood damage. Therefore, if homeowners outside floodplains buy flood insurance, taxpayers won't be on the hook if their properties flood. However, in order to have these homeowners buy flood insurance, they have to learn about the program and its benefits to them. This is where radio and television advertising are helpful-- essential, that is. The ads reach a wide audience and present clear facts about the availability and affordability of flood insurance. To take away FEMA's ability to let the people know what's available to them would actually place the millions of Americans who choose and are not required to purchase flood insurance at risk. Given these times of record deficits, this is simply irresponsible. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. In drafting this bill, the chairwoman and I sought to strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood insurance program. I believe that the bill before us today does just that. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the gentleman's amendment strikes the same balance. Specifically, by creating a reserve fund, the gentleman's amendment would allow the NFIP to increase insurance premiums on homeowners. So regardless of their flood risk, homeowners will have to pay more in order to fund a reserve fund that will never have enough money to pay out claims for catastrophic events. This isn't fair to our taxpayers, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, would stall the already slow recovery of the housing market. I understand the problem that the gentleman is attempting to solve. We all know that the flood insurance program is over $17 billion in debt due to claims resulting from Hurricane Katrina. However, I think we have to be clear that Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic, once in a lifetime event. Prior to Katrina, the flood insurance program operated completely in the black. In addition, I believe that the bill contains many provisions that would allow the flood insurance program to reform its premium structure so that it can collect the premiums it needs to pay out claims. For example, the bill ends subsidies for 350,000 pre-FIRM properties, including second homes, commercial properties, homes with new owners, homes substantially damaged or improved, and homes with repetitive claims. By making these properties pay actuarial rates that reflect their full risk, the bill would make these properties pay their fair share, thereby increasing the amount of funding to the flood insurance fund. Mr. Chairman, while I believe that the gentleman's amendment is very well intended, I believe that it is unnecessary given the strong reforms in this bill and the potential problems it may cause for homeowners, particularly those that have been phased into actuarial rates. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment and I would urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong support of the Schock-Boren-Waters-Sensenbrenner-Franks-Kaptur amendment to strike section 18. For years, the too-big-to-fail banks have attempted to eliminate their patent infringement liabilities to smaller companies and inventors that have patented financial services- related business method patents. They are now coming to Congress in hopes that you will help them steal a specific type of innovation and legislatively take other financial services-related business method patents referenced in H.R. 1249, section 18. This is simply wrong. Elected Members of Congress should not allow the banks to use us to steal legally issued and valid patents. Financial services-related business method patents have saved financial services companies billions of dollars. But that's not enough for the banks. Because the banks have failed at every attempt to void these patents, they're attempting to use their power to write into law what they could not achieve at PTO or in the courts. Don't be tricked, don't be fooled, and don't be used. I urge my colleagues to listen to the floor debates.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2112, the Republican Appropriations bill for Agriculture, Food Safety and Nutrition Programs for the coming fiscal year. This bill drastically underfunds critical nutrition programs for hungry people throughout the United States. This bill is yet another chapter in the Republican attack on working families. First, the Republicans tried to cut benefits for seniors who rely on Medicare. Then, they went after low-income families who rely on Medicaid. They tried to dismantle health care reform and leave people with pre- existing conditions at the mercy of profit-hungry insurance companies. Now, they're coming after hungry people who rely on food assistance. The bill cuts funding for the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, nutrition program by more than $650 million below the fiscal year 2011 level. The WIC program provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating habits, and health care referrals to about 9 million low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under five. WIC is an effective program with a long history of bipartisan support. For the past 15 years, Congresses and Administrations of both parties have always provided enough funds for WIC to serve all women, infants and children who qualify--until now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the funding cut in this bill would force WIC to turn away between 200,000 and 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year, including 32,000 to 56,000 women and children in my home state of California. This bill also cuts funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food program, CSFP, by 22 percent below this year's funding level. CSFP is an agricultural commodity program that provides nutritious food packages to about 604,000 low-income people each month, 96 percent of whom are senior citizens who earn less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level. The Republicans' proposed funding cuts would result in loss of food for at least 130,000 low-income seniors. The bill cuts funding to The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, by $51 million and cuts TEFAP administrative funding for food storage and distribution by 23 percent. TEFAP provides nutritious food commodities to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger relief. TEFAP commodities are distributed by organizations like soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, and faith-based food pantries at churches, mosques and synagogues. These cuts would force many local organizations to turn away hungry people. Finally, the bill underfunds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. SNAP provides monthly benefits to 44 million low-income Americans using a grocery debit card. The Administration requested a $5 billion reserve fund for SNAP to assure that there would be adequate resources to help needy people in the event of continuing high unemployment or unexpected increases in demand from events like natural disasters. The Republicans cut the reserve fund by $2 billion. Meanwhile, the Republican budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and cuts the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent. According to the Center for Tax Justice, the Republican budget cuts taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans by 15 percent while raising taxes for the lowest income 20 percent of Americans by 12 percent. Madam Chair, if we got rid of the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could pay for the entire WIC program for a year. I urge my colleagues to stand up for working families--not millionaires and billionaires! Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by Representative DeLauro to H.R. 2112, the FY 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which would fully fund the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). By gutting funding for the CFTC, the underlying bill would fulfill the Republican agenda of dismantling the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am very concerned that in the absence of this amendment, we will continue to see the same unregulated, unchecked, and unmitigated speculation in the derivatives market that led to the financial collapse, the impacts of which included: Over $10 trillion in household wealth destruction, with the average household losing 23 percent of its stored wealth; Nearly 10 million lost jobs; Wage losses of approximately $3,250 per household; 12 million expected foreclosures; and A 30 percent peak to trough decline in home prices. Moreover, by underfunding the CFTC, this bill would contribute to the high gas prices that are already harming our economy and our constituents. The CFTC wants to set position limits on speculative trading, including speculation on gasoline. Without adequate funding, the CFTC will not be able to do this. We know that consumers felt the pain of runaway speculation at the pump. According to a recent poll by the Associated Press, 71 percent of Americans said rising prices will cause some hardship for them and their families, including 41 percent who called it a serious hardship. While gasoline prices have recently declined--several weeks ago the average cost of a gallon of gasoline in Los Angeles was $4.27--if speculation on gasoline rises to the levels it was several weeks ago, gasoline prices will shoot back up. According to Goldman Sachs, speculation on gasoline alone added $20 to the price of a barrel of oil. The CFTC has a proposed rule that would prevent this type of abuse. But by underfunding the CFTC, H.R. 2112 would stop that rule, an action that will ensure that our constituents continue to feel pain at the pump. As you can see, Mr. Chair, it is our constituents who suffer the consequences of unregulated derivatives. Underfunding the CFTC is not only irresponsible, it is a slap in the face to the taxpaying Americans that bailed out the institutions that cost them their retirement funds, their jobs, and their homes. This is why I support the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut. If her amendment is not adopted, passage today of H.R. 2112 will come at the expense of these Americans, who will see higher oil prices as a direct result of this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding Abortion bill. This bill prevents women who have private insurance plans from receiving comprehensive sexual health coverage even in cases when their health is in danger. It is extremely clear that Republicans are waging a war against women's rights by pushing a radical agenda that will primarily hurt poor and low-income women. An agenda like this only further proves that the Republicans are not interested in jobs and repairing our economy but instead more interested in divisive social issues that will not move this economy forward. Women and families need affordable and accessible health care more than ever before. This blatant assault on women's health needs to stop. As elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that all rights, including women's rights, are not violated through policies that only further limit access. We have to stand up and fight for the preservation of the rights for all women by defeating this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for agreeing to offer my amendment en bloc to H.R. 2055-- Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. My amendment simply removes funding from the VA Medical Support and Compliance Account and replaces it back in the very same account. My intent in doing this is to highlight an issue for my colleagues and for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). I believe that the VA needs to comprehensively examine its wait times for processing requests for mental health services from veterans and that the VA should submit a report to Congress no later than January 1 of 2012 on changes they intend to make to ensure that veterans needing mental health services receive those services in a timely and efficacious manner. Veterans in my district often wait years for a resolution of their cases with the VA. My office works closely with veterans, assisting many of them in expediting their requests for the benefits to which they are entitled, including mental health benefits. Unfortunately, many of these veterans still wait years for a resolution of their cases. This is simply unacceptable. These men and women have sacrificed their health, well-being, and, in some cases, their livelihoods, for this country. The excessively long wait times at the VA are unjust and un-American. The wait times for veterans who are suicidal or suffering from mental health illnesses, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), are especially troubling. I strongly urge my colleagues to support timely mental health services for our veterans by voting ``yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, No. 29, which is being offered en bloc by the House Armed Services Committee. My amendment to H.R. 1540 provides a preference for potential Department of Defense contractors that carry out certain investment and philanthropic activities to bolster education, training, and employment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, all of the STEM disciplines. My amendment is intended to promote enhanced public and private partnerships, civic, and investment activities to strengthen our Nation's STEM pipeline and ensure that the United States continues to produce highly skilled STEM professionals that are both diverse and innovative. Waters amendment No. 29 will signal to potential contractors that the Federal Government is serious about improving STEM education and creating a pipeline that will protect the Nation's economic future. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment.